Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 185 posts

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#101

Post by decafninja »

RangerScience wrote: post #63
jaaron wrote: post #51

I'm wondering if much of the discussion here is even about the article, which advocates for things we long know work better: * Structured interviews * Blind auditions * Competency-related evaluations The title "Job interviews don't work" is rather bait-clicky when clearly they advocate that _some_ form of job interviews work. Or are at least better. As a technical hiring manager for over a decade, here's where I'm at…

> The next best interview would be a portfolio. I tried using my (limited) open source hobby project portfolio as a substitute for coding interviews. Companies either didn't take me up on it, or still also required me to do their regular take-home. Twice now, I have had two companies ask for the same take-home, although in the first case they asked me to re-do the work in their preferred language.

If you are creating a portfolio for the primary purpose of showcasing it to get a job, I don't think it's worth the effort. Maybe there is an exception if you are a high profile contributor to high profile projects.

Otherwise the number of companies that care about a candidate's portfolio is small. Just studying leetcode problems is still the most scalable way to a job, unfortunately.

A shame, because there are so many things I want to build, work on, or contribute to, but all of that is put on hold until I can land the job first via leetcode.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#102

Post by the_jeremy »

jokoon wrote: post #96
antisthenes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can understand social filters when it comes to friendships, sex and intimate relationship, but for jobs, I will never understand why they exist. Because jobs are just as social as intimate relationships, if not more so. Up to about the 2010s, the majority of marriages came from getting to know someone at work. Even if nothing intimate does come from work, it's still people you have to see 8 hours a day for years…

> Because jobs are just as social as intimate relationships, if not more so. For very small or family companies, maybe. In small communities, maybe, but small communities could also include people from any horizon. But in other cases, I disagree. Work and production is the blood of human civilization. Generally, the free market ideology says that if you're competent, it's the only relevant parameter. Social filters a…

If you don't exclude socially toxic people from your company, talented people who don't want to work with that type of person will leave. I know multiple people who have left or transferred because of difficult coworkers, and more who have left because of difficult managers. If one toxic person can't outperform all the talented people who will leave, it is in the company's best interests not to hire that person.

Yes, you can technically call this social darwinism. If you are an irritating person that no one wants to be around, you will be socially excluded. I don't know of any movement that is going to champion your cause. There is a difference between preventing profiling / prejudice and avoiding manipulative, mean people.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#103

Post by the_jeremy »

exabrial wrote: post #45

Silicon Valley interviews are worthless. The algorithm pop-quiz is just a way for the interviewer to beat his chest about some obscure facts and demonstrate his superior knowledge to the interviewee. Has anyone found a better process than casual conversation? I've found it effective as long as engineers and non-engineers get a chance to participate. Usually I talk about what they want, talk about what you need, talk…

> because if they don't live up, it's a simple conversation to refer back to the expectations that are set and help them achieve , or worst-case, offer them severance.

That is a bad hire. You are describing a PIP and then firing someone that you wasted time and resources recruiting, on-boarding, and training.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#105

Post by stove »

dahart wrote: post #87
stove wrote: post #11

There's a growing rift in software between employers saying "there's a talent shortage" and a rapidly growing population of devs who feel like they're locked out due to the technical interview process. Many of the engineers not being hired are recent bootcamp grads but there are also tons of CS majors that can't seem to "crack" the interview process. Part of my job is helping companies "fix" their hiring and one of t…

> a rapidly growing population of devs who feel like they're locked out due to the technical interview process. I’m not convinced all these articles about “hiring is broken” and “interviews are broken” actually help with this problem. They are pining for something that may not exist (and may not be possible), and failing to help candidates understand and excel within the current system’s imperfections. I get the impr…

I would argue that _none_ of the articles about “hiring is broken” and “interviews are broken” actually help with this problem.

There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious and yet very few people putting forth possible solutions and/or companies willing to experiment with the status quo.

My ideas are: * Real-world interview questions * Standardized testing for "soft" skills. It can be done. * Dedicated onboarding resources * Apprenticeships for entry-level engineers with dedicated training programs * Remove all names from all inbound job applications * Offer _more_ money for internal referrals. Make them on par with what you'd pay a recruiter.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#106

Post by decafninja »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #19
kabdib wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this a serious problem? You would be astonished, absolutely flabbergasted, at the number of "senior engineers" who interview well, talk great about projects, but cannot demonstrate basic programming skills (e.g., convert an integer to a string representation, or write fizzbuzz).

How does this happen? What (apparently huge) swath of industry am I insulated from where this can take root? Is this just a bunch of wannabes after tech salaries? Or is this is a side-effect of industrial java programming, where their "job" was basically filling in boilerplate? (I am probably unfairly slandering java shops, it seems unlikely, but everything else seems even more unlikely) It boggles my mind.

It boggles my mind too. I've conducted a fair number of interviews both phone and in-person, and I don't think I've ever encountered anyone remotely that bad.

I work in a non-tech company (bank), so I assume the general caliber of candidates is quite lower than what a bonafide Silicon Valley style tech company would see.

Would the typical candidate I interview be able to pass a DS&A leetcode medium or hard, getting the superoptimal solution on the first try within But most are still able to code up an acceptable solution to a more "realistic" in-person coding exercise we give them.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#107

Post by closeparen »

jaaron wrote: post #69
bluedino wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find them through word-of-mouth.

Double edged sword. Certainly helps to find great talent and build a cohesive team. Also tends to perpetuate our biases, create cliques and echo chambers. Makes it harder for new talent to break in. When I build my teams, I try to balance referrals with newly sourced talent far outside my network.

Judgement, taste, sensibility, intuition - this is what human professionals are for. The value of an experienced worker is in the biases he has accumulated.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#108

Post by tj0 »

claudiawerner wrote: post #100
simonw wrote: post #48

If you want a really big competitive advantage, figure out how to hire great people who don't interview well.

I'm incredibly nervous about job interviews. I'll start sweating in the first two or three minutes even over Zoom. I recently "fell into" a job because my university supervisor recommended me to a friend of his at a small business in which my only test was a code review I could do the day before. But I worry that for any future job because I'm terrible at algorithm questions, and I suspect (and I doubt this is just i…

I'm five years into my career, and still experience this same kind of anxiety. Only recently did I revisit algorithms as I'm getting serious about my job search now, and am still super nervous.

Not to mention, having a family, I don't have a ton of time to study for the gauntlet decent tech companies put in place to vet candidates.

As for personal projects? See lack of time above. I'm lucky to get an hour a week to work on something I actually enjoy. Forget about building something unique/useful/worth public launch in any kind of reasonable time. Also, let's not forget the fun non-compete/anything you build while employed with X is owned by X clauses.

Hiring in general is broken. In tech it just seems amplified.

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#109

Post by edoceo »

protonimitate wrote: post #88
edoceo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a gig to hire process for this. It works very well. I've been meaning to write more about it but I also get income for helping with hiring around this model so im a bit conflicted. The whole answer is long and complex. Basically: give candidate a proper task on your project and evaluate them based on that work - the "interview" is less than an hour, the "work" is longer (many hours (and you pay for it)) - provi…

I'm curious - what's the conversion ratio for this? I like the idea of this but can't help but think it's ripe for being taken advantage of (on both sides). Have you had trouble with converting to full time offers? Have you had candidates "waste" time/money by severely under-performing or not finishing tasks?

Most applicants fail out but are still comped.

For a business the cost to make the hire is the same, the time commitment is much less and the candidate fit is more accurate

Re: Limitations and pitfalls of the job interview

#110

Post by edoceo »

fredophile wrote: post #82
edoceo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a gig to hire process for this. It works very well. I've been meaning to write more about it but I also get income for helping with hiring around this model so im a bit conflicted. The whole answer is long and complex. Basically: give candidate a proper task on your project and evaluate them based on that work - the "interview" is less than an hour, the "work" is longer (many hours (and you pay for it)) - provi…

That will work for some people but not everyone. At my current job I can't monetize work I do outside the company without approval. That means I can't go through you application process unless I quit first. Even if I was allowed to do this I don't think I'd want to. The time commitment of an extra project on top of my normal workload is not something I want.

All hiring process have the some-not-all problem. This process is just a different set for "some". Remember though it's a some-some problem on both sides too. I think it's sometimes called the "secretary problem".
Post reply on HN