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

We only hire the trendiest

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 728 posts

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#181

Post by ArkyBeagle »

tptacek wrote: post #96
dunkelheit wrote: post #78

I see wonderful symmetry here. There are TrendyCos (hot startup unicorns), BigCos (established companies like google or amazon or microsoft) and UnknownCos (not in the limelight so there is not much information about them). Likewise there are TrendyDevs (hotshots who produce one heavily github-starred framework after another), BigCoDevs (multiple years of experience at one of the BigCos, probably were responsible for…

There's no magic to it at all. Have every candidate work on programming problems related to the work you do at your company. Have every candidate work on the same problems, and let them do it from home. Build and iterate on a rubric for grading those challenges. It is amazing to me that almost nobody does this, but: almost nobody does this. They have programmers write code on a whiteboard, or on some whiteboard-codin…

But this takes far too long.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#183

Post by bryanrasmussen »

ciaranm wrote: post #155
jamesdutc wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consulting" or "contracting" can refer to different kinds of work arrangements. One of these is what's called "staff augmentation." Large companies with huge teams of full-time employed software programmers will often hire contractors to fill gaps. These contractors are typically contractors-in-name-only: they work under exactly the same conditions as full-time employees but with a worse tax situation, without acces…

Can I ask what location this is? It's vastly different to my experience of the contracting environment in the UK.

I think this is an U.S thing where this kind of division has sprung up - so you have contractor ("temp", "paid less") full-time employee consultant ("paid more")

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#184

Post by darkclarity »

koevet wrote: post #110

"Contractors are generally not the strongest technically" Where does this come from? I actually see a contractor as someone who had experienced way more "war stories" than the guy who has been sitting in the same chair for 10/20 years. As a contractor, you are exposed to more technologies, more business sectors, different working cultures.

As the article suggests, I think it's just code. The recruiter is being subtle in case the employee overreacts and passes on the message to the candidate. Contractors are expensive, more experienced, less malleable and can give other employees ideas that there's an alternative.

Graduates and junior developers will burn themselves to hell and back trying to impress their employer because they don't know any better. That includes people who have never worked for a proper business (i.e. not a VC backed startup).

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#185

Post by ciaranm »

phpnode wrote: post #164
ciaranm wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask what location this is? It's vastly different to my experience of the contracting environment in the UK.

Agree that this is the exact opposite of my experience as a contractor in the UK. I work as a contractor because the money is much better and because I have access to a wide variety of interesting projects. In the UK the contractors have the power - the companies I work for would hire me full time if they could.

Similar situation here. The company I'm currently contracting for mentioned they struggle to find experienced Scala devs who will interview for permanent roles.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#186

Post by AlexB138 »

bsdpython wrote: post #84

I don't like it but I do understand it from the employers perspective. Most hiring is done to avoid risk. Went to a top school, working at a popular company and already using the tech we use? Come in for an interview. Missing one of the three? We'll phone screen. Missing two out of the three? Not worth my time.

I understand the other two, but I'm curious why "working at a popular company" makes sense to you. What does that have to do with avoiding risk? Is it the assumption that those companies don't make hiring mistakes?

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#188

Post by bye_amzn »

pingec wrote: post #9

Is the anti windows/.NET bias really that common? I have been a .NET dev for 6 years because that was my job. But I don`t believe that makes me useless on any other stack. In fact lately I desire to work on something that feels exciting and fresh again but sometimes I feel like .NET devs are looked down upon and it`s not so easy to land a job or contract outside .Net land.

Ex Amazon here. I've done a lot of interviews and I've never seen candidates being refused an on-site interview for having extensive Windows experience. Still, the hire rate would be really low. Most would have little knowledge of what exists outside of an IDE: OS internals, system design, networking.

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#189

Post by rdl »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #137
tptacek wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no magic to it at all. Have every candidate work on programming problems related to the work you do at your company. Have every candidate work on the same problems, and let them do it from home. Build and iterate on a rubric for grading those challenges. It is amazing to me that almost nobody does this, but: almost nobody does this. They have programmers write code on a whiteboard, or on some whiteboard-codin…

FWIW I presented this option to my senior management and HR at a "household name" software company and was essentially told we can't do this because it looks like a test and we'd have to do the same test for every candidate or else open our selves up to discrimination issues, no matter which team the position is for, and that was a no go.

Work-sample tests are clearly protected; it's IQ tests which aren't permitted (Duke Power v.)

Re: We only hire the trendiest

#190

Post by J-dawg »

mooreds wrote: post #50
mbrock wrote: post #39

I sometimes think there's a built in pomposity in the whole attitude of hiring, looking for someone "good enough to qualify." Instead, I like to think of it as, we are looking for someone to help us , someone who has different experience and knowledge, someone who could tell us how we can improve. Then instead of this adversarial situation of selecting a new ingroup member, it's a solicitation for assistance with a b…

Appreciate the humanization of both job candidates and employers inherent in the shift you advocate. I have done a bit of hiring and it was very hard to walk the line between effective use of my time and being open to people with all kinds of experience. (It was a junior position and I talked to some very junior candidates.) But it is always important to remember that there is a human being on both sides of the table…

Could you expand on how you ended up walking that line? Did you feel you wasted your time on under-qualified people? Did you end up hiring anyone who initially didn't seem like a textbook candidate? If so, how did they turn out?

The reason I ask is that I've always been nervous about applying for jobs when I don't have every skill listed on the ad.

The advice I've been given is usually something like "Apply anyway. The job advert is a wish list, not a minimum."

But I'm still terrified of an interviewer opening my CV and asking how the hell I slipped through the screening process. Or even worse, being too polite to be so blunt and awkwardly going through the motions of an interview.

It would be awesome to get the perspective of an interviewer.

Post reply on HN