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

Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 381 posts

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#181

Post by JeremyNT »

sroussey wrote: post #107
CoastalCoder wrote: post #24

I was laid off over a year ago, and I should finally be starting a new job in a few weeks once the paperwork clears. I think the following factors contributed to my long unemployment: (1) At first, lousy market for remote jobs. Big layoffs from major tech companies made it an employer's market. (2) Rusty interview skills. I wasn't at all ready for Leetcode-type tests, and I hadn't realized that I suck at live coding…

I was never good at live coding tests, and have hired 100 engineers myself and avoided having them do it as well. Of course, that doesn’t help when suddenly on the other side of the table and leetcode live quizzes are the norm. Oy vey.

Hah, I have the same concern. When I started in my career path the leetcode stuff wasn't even a thing, and despite having a long career behind me now I know if I was thrown into the job market I'd need a lot of practice to get past the stuff.

It's one thing that we senior (in both senses of the word!) developers should definitely keep in mind about the job market, and indeed I value stability a lot more because of this. The equivalent position that we were hired / promoted into a while back might very well immediately weed us out in 2024 because the interview standards have changed!

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#182

Post by jongjong »

danaris wrote: post #159
sokoloff wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leetcode (or hacker rank or others) and other algorithmic qualification (have recruiter ask for years of experience in exactly X) is an understandable response to the automated firehose tools that allow applicants to deluge companies with applications with relatively low effort per app. Companies have to find some way to filter out the percentage that have very low likelihood of succeeding. I hate it, but I don’t see…

My observation has been that the causality is the other way around: the pointless mindgames of employers trying to find "the best" people via interviews led to job-seekers finding ways to game a system that was rigged against them. However, regardless of "who started it" in this round, ultimately, it is unquestionably a situation we can lay at the feed of industry, which abandoned decades ago the practice of actually…

Yes, looking at big company interview processes, it can give you a huge unfair advantage if you can know what kinds of technical questions would be asked ahead of time. It's kind of ridiculous and counter-productive that employers are obsessed with selecting developers who can solve problems under time pressure.

The kind of developer who writes code quickly may also be the kind of developer who jumps to conclusions too quickly; this attitude is a huge problem in the medium and long term when working on any decent size project. Choosing sub-par solutions can trigger a cascade of negative consequences for the project over time. Often, it's better to have developers who are really thorough and don't move to the next stage until all reasonable possibilities have been considered.

The people who can solve problems quickly are often not the same people who can solve problems optimally.

The current system seems to favor fast-moving code monkeys with zero understanding of architecture or security.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#183

Post by avmich »

SideQuark wrote: post #98
banannaise wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Structural unemployment happens when the perceived skills of the workforce don't match the perceived needs of employers, so there is both unemployment and difficulty hiring. A lot of engineers will tell you that companies are often expecting both too much (precise types of experience) and the wrong things (leetcode-type challenges, unnecessarily specific knowledge...), which leads them to pass over perfectly qualifie…

Quite often perception of reality matches actual reality. I've found it extremely rare to the point of almost being non-existent that what engineers think a company needs or should do is accurate compared to what a company needs or should do.

Probably to what company thinks the company needs or should do? It's rare - very - when a company really needs to do something unusual, which engineers wouldn't expect.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#184

Post by tptacek »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #172
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're almost all cargo culting the same whiteboard algorithm hiring criteria for otherwise humdrum jobs so yeah, they're all kind of unreasonable. An HR fad can cause structural employment just as easily as bona fide requirements not being met.

They are cargo cutting, I was about to make the same point. I am more likely to get a leetcode quiz from a small company trying to emulate a FAANG company than I am from an interview with an actual FAANG company. Leetcode is part a costly signal given the study that has to be put into it, and part IQ test. I think part of the proliferation of leetcode is due to the illegality (edit: in effect even though not explicit…

It is not illegal to give candidates IQ tests. There are huge firms that do so openly. The practice isn't widespread because it doesn't work well, not because it's proscribed.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#185

Post by jstummbillig »

yau8edq12i wrote: post #59
jstummbillig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but nobody is lobbying for worse interview processes and if anyone has an incentive to make it better, it's employers (for whom it is disproportionally more expensive). People love to poke fun at it, but employers are not trying to make it bad. It's just a hard problem.

Even a single person can be hypocritical or self-sabotaging sometimes. And "an employer" is often not a single person but an organization with a bunch of people pulling in different directions. Some people making hiring decisions or deciding on hiring procedures may not necessarily care about the procedure being "bad". Maybe they e.g. care about maintaining "standards" or whatever justification they came up with.

Unless you have a novel insight, let's assume that market forces apply. Yes, we all had bad experiences — and they go into the calculus. A company that creates consistently horrible experiences for their candidates will be taxed by the market.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#186

Post by avmich »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #172
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're almost all cargo culting the same whiteboard algorithm hiring criteria for otherwise humdrum jobs so yeah, they're all kind of unreasonable. An HR fad can cause structural employment just as easily as bona fide requirements not being met.

They are cargo cutting, I was about to make the same point. I am more likely to get a leetcode quiz from a small company trying to emulate a FAANG company than I am from an interview with an actual FAANG company. Leetcode is part a costly signal given the study that has to be put into it, and part IQ test. I think part of the proliferation of leetcode is due to the illegality (edit: in effect even though not explicit…

Can we have similar tests for companies, some formalized employment-worthiness?

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#187

Post by cjbgkagh »

tptacek wrote: post #184
cjbgkagh wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are cargo cutting, I was about to make the same point. I am more likely to get a leetcode quiz from a small company trying to emulate a FAANG company than I am from an interview with an actual FAANG company. Leetcode is part a costly signal given the study that has to be put into it, and part IQ test. I think part of the proliferation of leetcode is due to the illegality (edit: in effect even though not explicit…

It is not illegal to give candidates IQ tests. There are huge firms that do so openly. The practice isn't widespread because it doesn't work well, not because it's proscribed.

Any test that has disparate impact is in effect illegal. Leetcode at least makes this process more opaque which helps limit liability. I have edited my post to note that there is no explicit legislation making IQ tests illegal in the US.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#188

Post by alephnerd »

shagie wrote: post #163
ralphc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll throw in my personal example from 2012 when I was laid off. Senior dev, about 30 years experience at the time. A friend knew of an opening somewhere but they wanted GWT experience, I didn't have it so they wouldn't talk to me. 6 weeks later they were still looking. Like I couldn't learn GWT in six weeks? If they hired any decent dev after a good general screening and gave him the docs they could self-learn GWT i…

The risk is that they hire someone who doesn't know GWT and six weeks later (and six months later) they still don't know it. The ability to do self directed learning of a new skill / technology is something that is difficult to find (a lot of developers that I know don't know how to learn a new version of Java or framework and are still writing code exactly as they did when they graduated college... and they could pu…

> The risk is that they hire someone who doesn't know GWT and six weeks later (and six months later) they still don't know it.

100% THIS.

If I wanted to fire someone I just hired, it ends up taking 2-3 quarters (1 Q realize they suck, 1-2 Qs managing them out/building a case) AND looks very bad on the hiring manager because you wasted $1.75*BASE_SALARY of company money and have nothing to show for it.

I understand some candidates can learn quickly, but as a hiring manager you learn very quickly to plan and assume for the worst case, because sadly, most people do kinda suck.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#189

Post by kjkjadksj »

A lot of white collar hiring is rooted in a romantic or even fantastic vision of hiring. Seeking out the good worker before they’ve even worked.

Just hire like how blue collar jobs hire and this would be a non issue. In other words: no hoops or tests just hire who is willing to work and either train on the job or fire who doesn’t work out. Problem solved. Cities are literally built from dust by hiring like this. You can build an app like this too.

Re: Discussion: Job seekers can't find a job and Employers can't find an employees

#190

Post by cjbgkagh »

avmich wrote: post #186
cjbgkagh wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are cargo cutting, I was about to make the same point. I am more likely to get a leetcode quiz from a small company trying to emulate a FAANG company than I am from an interview with an actual FAANG company. Leetcode is part a costly signal given the study that has to be put into it, and part IQ test. I think part of the proliferation of leetcode is due to the illegality (edit: in effect even though not explicit…

Can we have similar tests for companies, some formalized employment-worthiness?

I think previous work history is currently most used as a substitute. As in the hiring company assumes the previous companies have acted as a gatekeeper. Given the amount of money involved it would be difficult to maintain a formalization / certification process that would be both trusted and resistant to corruption.
Post reply on HN