Live data from Hacker News

Hiring Is Broken?

software.rajivprab.com

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#181
post #18
post #5

One thing I’d add is that live coding exercises can vary widely in quality. > If you solve the problem, you’re scored highly. If you don’t, you’re scored poorly. In my own opinion, this is a terrible way to look at these problems, though many people do use this metric. This is further emphasized by HackerRank-style exercises where you have to pass all test cases. This is robotic and not empathic at all. A more fluid…

I wonder if there is any value in having a few candidates do a group project. Would probably be a mess but might be informative, you could at least identify the bullies and dickheads pretty quickly.

There's an organisation that operates like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruit_training

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#182

hiring is really simple: you can straightforwardly filter out the obvious no's, but beyond that, it's a crapshoot. basketball analogy time! (my favorite =) the NBA employs 450 of the best basketball players on the planet, and at any given time, the league is evaluating a few thousand more (out of hundreds of millions of basketball players, out of ~7.5 billion people worldwide). all the easy filtering is done. every y…

Pro sports is an interesting comparison, in that it has a very long-chain training and recruiting system, starting as young as age 5-10, and including sport leagues and/or school teams to refine talent. Though professional recruiters may not be looking at younger players, sports leagues and schools are quite conscious of talent.

Professional lifetimes are also frequently quite short. For gymnasts, competing life is virtually over by age of majority, for Americna football, a few years in pros is typical, though some careers last longer. Baseball, cricket, tennis, and golf are longer-lived exceptions.

I'm not saying this as a rabid sport ethusiast, and the transfers to technical recruiting may be limited, but it's at least an interesting system to consider.

Other uneven talent/fame domains are theatrical performance (acting, music), and, possibly, writing.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#183
The problem isn't limited to engineering hires, ever bought a house and had to go look for a builder to check the house is in good nick? What about the lawyer you use for the conveyancing?

How about an accountant to do your taxes?

Further, how do you define who is the best? Someone who does a so-so job in a short amount of time? Someone who checks every possible decision branch, explicit or implicit? Someone who writes code in a clever way.

You're only ever going to see the skills you understand. Anything that you do not understand you will miss.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#184
post #135
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVE list for android would be a good place to start ;)

Start with what exactly? Did you personally work on any other project at that scale with less CVEs?

What I work on has nothing to do with the fact googles products are no better or worse than others. Proving they are just normal people.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#185
post #177
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re trying to measure how they’ll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you’re trying to get free work from them. I wish the hyperbole about trying to get free work during an interview would just die already. Nobody is getting free work by interviewing applicants, interviews are costly to most companies, but necessary to grow the team. Just because interviews take time and are difficult and…

I consider it a failure of the company and interviewers if they need more than a few 1hr sessions to determine candidate suitability.

Can you name a single company that needs 'more than a few' 1 hr sessions ? Accepted definition of 'few' is at least 3 and usually between 3-5

Most companies have 4 sessions : 1 HR phone, 1 tech phone, 1 tech onsite, 1 HR onsite.

But bigger companies (i.e. bigger salary) increase the 'tech onsite' up to 4. Some companies replace one of the tech phone/onsites with a take-home challenge.

If you want more money, you gotta beat the other 100 people who also want more money. Simple case of demand and supply.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah all you have to ask is questions like why did you use A instead of B? Did you run into any problems implementing that? It doesn’t take long before people start stammering and deflecting if they’re full of shit.

"people start stammering and deflecting if they’re full of shit. " - I think what your evaluating there is charisma.

It’s possible you are interviewing that one charismatic fraud, but what’s more likely is that you’re just interviewing the mediocre developer caught in a lie.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#187
post #33
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an impression that this problem is only at a few places like Google which is not the case. As someone recently browsing the market I've seen this process adopted rampantly and without reason or rationale. So many companies I would consider mid-tier, lower, or not even technology companies have outsourced have adopted similar if not the same hiring models of FAANG or outsource hiring/recruiting/assessments tha…

Meh. I don't buy it. I agree with the parent that it's usually people not getting hired being mad about it. - "interviewing is broken" is a meaningless linkbait title. All you can really say is it's less efficient than it could be. - In fact, interviewing in tech might be the best of any industry. Look how good we are at hiring minorities, people without college degrees, people who don't wear suits, people with verba…

> It's usually people not getting hired being mad about it.

Or it’s a bunch of very competent coders annoyed that they’re made to jump through hoops.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#188
Why is it that no one questions the system in which these —at best, ridiculously obtuse—at worst, totally corrupt, often nepotistic— “interviews” reside? The whole “interview/audition” culture comes out of a kind of gladiator/Olympic ethos that pits "commoners" against one another for the amusement of the powerful, while solidifying the collective deception that keeps them in power. It’s a lever workers hand over willingly because the other mythology—the one in which their genius and hard work “earned” them their position—is an identity narrative they can’t survive the despair of corporate culture without. But haven’t the critical thinkers among us agreed that when the starting bootstraps are of different lengths, we can’t trust our notions of “merit-based” reward? Celebrities bribing their kids into college is but one of the more languid manifestations of the bankruptcy of this belief system. When we play along in this gerrymandered Miss America pagent—what now passes for job interviews in tech—we legitimize and endorse these so-called “measurements". We need to collectively refuse to participate, with some vehemence and volume. We must stop trying to make fairer versions of this fundamentally dishonest bullshit. There is no fair Three Card Monty; it’s a trick! Back in the day, the only folks who would play that game around 42nd St. were tourists or kids who’d just moved to the city. This interview process is the same; you can only pull it on the green, which is why it selects for the young and desperate. Hey! Young and Desperate! You are way smarter and better than this.

For those looking for actual data, like the post’s author who says as much, one could turn to the classical music “industry”. This audition process where “the best man wins” was exactly that for many, many years, until someone thought to put up a screen and down a carpeted walkway, and well, what do you know?...when the candidates were truly anonymous, women started winning. Here’s an article http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact..., one of many on this study. So that trick was revealed, but ultimately, the idea that they would select the “best” players of orchestral excerpts resulted in them looking for players who rivaled computers in accuracy. Unfortunately, that isn’t really what one wants in an art. Anyone there has the accuracy required in spades. Accuracy beyond that is just meat compiling. It turns out that classical orchestras populated by this kind of person lack morale, creativity and vitality and don’t evolve with the culture, so these organizations have become culturally dead and are going bankrupt all over the country—this after their members were forced to let go of any real compensation and all dignity. The problem is that most organizations like these and tech companies are top-down. They are run like the military; their basic training programs are even called “boot camps”, and like boot camps, they won’t get you much. We need to take a look at the whole system, I’m afraid, or it will suffer a fate similar to music in this country, because that’s what happens here, eventually.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#189
With all the focus on broken hirering, I never quite head the employing side being like: “we thought this person was the perfect candidate but (s)he turned out to be rubbish.” So on that side of things it seems ok. Mostly the people who seem to think the system is broken are people who don’t get the positions they believe they are perfect fits for. But they have an extreme bias and don’t actually know the state of the competition that end up getting the position.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#190
The "cons" part of this list is filled with how a practise doesn't work for X class of devs.

So, why not randomly pick 5 of these practices and simply tailor your process so it works well for a majority of candidates?

Something like pick your poison?

Post reply on HN