Job Search: Interview Disasters Revealed By Employers

Post by prospero » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 7:15 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #19

radu_floricica wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the suit, it's about the message. As an employer you want to hire people who make an effort, and want to avoid people who can't be bothered to. Dressing well for an interview is so obvious it's actually a pretty good way of sorting candidates. This may apply less for programmers and high-end technical positions, but this is the exception not the rule.

What you're overlooking is that attention is a limited resource. Someone who pays attention to how they dress has thereby paid less attention than they might have to something substantive. So not only don't we care how people dress at YC interviews, dressing up is actually a (minor) red flag. We'd rather you spent that effort on something else.

Post by xenophanes » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 7:34 PM UTC

francoisdevlin wrote: post #15

xenophanes wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hire people that make a relevant effort, and don't punish people for failing to make an irrelevant effort, won't that give you a competitive advantage? Shouldn't we hire people who know what actually matters, and what doesn't matter, and prioritize?

If they can't bother to do something as simple as dress nice for something as formal as an interview, I don't want to have anything to do with the candidate.

Post by radu_floricica » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 8:08 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #19

radu_floricica wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the suit, it's about the message. As an employer you want to hire people who make an effort, and want to avoid people who can't be bothered to. Dressing well for an interview is so obvious it's actually a pretty good way of sorting candidates. This may apply less for programmers and high-end technical positions, but this is the exception not the rule.

What you're overlooking is that attention is a limited resource. Someone who pays attention to how they dress has thereby paid less attention than they might have to something substantive. So not only don't we care how people dress at YC interviews, dressing up is actually a (minor) red flag. We'd rather you spent that effort on something else.

Post by byrneseyeview » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:27 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #19

radu_floricica wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the suit, it's about the message. As an employer you want to hire people who make an effort, and want to avoid people who can't be bothered to. Dressing well for an interview is so obvious it's actually a pretty good way of sorting candidates. This may apply less for programmers and high-end technical positions, but this is the exception not the rule.

What you're overlooking is that attention is a limited resource. Someone who pays attention to how they dress has thereby paid less attention than they might have to something substantive. So not only don't we care how people dress at YC interviews, dressing up is actually a (minor) red flag. We'd rather you spent that effort on something else.

Post by radu_floricica » Thu, Feb 25, 2010, 9:48 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #26

radu_floricica wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In certain domains this applies (and indeed, given the blog's background it's on the mark). But in large segments of the job market I still think it's important to dress reasonably well. Even if attention is a limited resource, the interview usually is a place where first impressions matter, so I'd say budgeting some attention towards looks is not misguided at all.

You're right that dressing well matters in large segments of the job market. But I'd argue that this is a pretty good heuristic for deciding which segments of the job market to avoid.