151–160 of 185 posts
If you want a really big competitive advantage, figure out how to hire great people who don't interview well.
I've seen great devs intern twice at the same company while in college and spend several years there as full time right after graduating, only jumping ships when a friend at an other company specifically reached out.
They are essentially invisible to any recruiters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious I hear this a lot on Hacker News, but not inside any companies. And when asked why people think it's atrocious, I rarely get a set of answers that agree on the specifics. I'd love to hear more about what metrics show evidence that hiring is atrocious, as well as what is making it atrocious for you. What does that mean in the pre-coronavirus contex…
Where I work hr won't let us ask any question that isn't scientificly proven to make a difference. It makes it hard to ask technical questions.
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…
> 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. I'm extremely skeptical of bootcamps, especially after learning t…
One of the biggest problems CS grads face is that they can’t break out of the cycle of not having experience and can’t get a job and can’t get a job so they can’t get experience. After the first job it gets easier.
You can practice for algorithm type interviews and get a job. It also doesn’t matter where you went to school. It’s the great equalizer if you can teach yourself.
If I were trying to get my first job today instead of in the mid 90s, I would have been spending time “grinding LeetCode”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who is left that is willing to spend hours doing take home tests? I've used this process to help place entry level all the way to C-Level -- maybe I've not provided enough details (it's more than just a simple test) or maybe you're over-simplifying the process? It's not a perfect process (hiring in general is still looking for that) and clearly it's not the right process for you. I'm happy you found a job you enjoy…
Two non developer anecdotes from what I’ve heard or seen Solutions Architect - answer the soft skill questions aka “tell me about a time when..” and they had to do a writing sample either a sales blog post or an SOW. Project Manager - same soft skill questions, talk about processes, previous challenges and outcomes. Maybe do a simplified project plan. Are those the types of take home tasks you are referring to for no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious I hear this a lot on Hacker News, but not inside any companies. And when asked why people think it's atrocious, I rarely get a set of answers that agree on the specifics. I'd love to hear more about what metrics show evidence that hiring is atrocious, as well as what is making it atrocious for you. What does that mean in the pre-coronavirus contex…
It's atrocious but most companies won't reveal specifics because _those_ people were hired via the same process. So it plays into survivorship bias. And nothing will change.
I’m not sure I agree that the processes are hidden, every company I’ve ever worked for (several large corps you’ve heard of + several startups) talks about hiring practices publicly. Glassdoor and other sites, including HN, have all kinds of information & stories about what happens during interviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, as a hiring manager, if someone has a portfolio I definitely judge them on it, and if it's good it allows me to bypass huge swaths of technical/coding interview stuff and dig much deeper into where/what I want. I always take it as a positive, even if it's old stuff.
What do you find makes a portfolio better or worse for these purposes? Not so much "more likely to get them the job", more... I felt like my projects weren't actually suitable to take the place of coding interviews, largely because I couldn't actually drop in and work on them in the way that coding interviews show me actually doing work.
If I see a repo of rcfiles I know they care about working efficiently. If I see abandoned stuff with more than 1 commit that's OK, that's something that was cared about at one point. These are just two super generic examples. Almost everything is a positive.
The only thing I don't like to see is repos with 1 commit, and nothing other than a README with the repo title in it. Not really negative, more of a 'cmon gimme more.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I work hr won't let us ask any question that isn't scientificly proven to make a difference. It makes it hard to ask technical questions.
If HR is dictating how to conduct interviews for engineering staff, your company has some deep problems.
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).
I must be one hell of an outlier, then, because of the dozens of people I have interviewed over the years, exactly one could not demonstrate basic programming skills. Most of them couldn't get much further, but that is a different matter.
Confusingly, personal one-on-one interactions with companies or hiring agencies almost invariably result in positive feedback and comments, "you are exetremely hirable," "you have a strong technical background," etc. However, none of these interactions has gone anywhere. Either they "move forward with someone else" or simply evaporate into thin air. A few have even evaporated after extensive interviews and claiming that they wish to hire.
Is positive-sounding feedback just a polite way of avoiding some "elephant in the room" problem? Am I inadvertantly projecting an image of ineptitude or hostility?
I have over 20 years of experience on Linux, tinker and program as a hobby, and also lightly contribute to open source projects. I believe I have what it takes, but geez, sometimes this job search is just soul crushing. I just want to offer my skills and talents---to be a valuable member on a good team.
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.