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

I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

codeamigo.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–258 of 258 posts

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#251

Post by cutemonster »

KerryJones wrote: post #147
pkrotich wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you hired anyone? Asking because your comment make it sounds like there's science to it. I don't like the committee hiring as well but team or manager level hiring can segment the company culture. Also individuals can be biased and hire based on vibes or who is like them etc. - committee brings a check to that, that's why it's common. The truth is - you'll miss some great candidates because they simply interview…

I have -- quite a few times in quite a few different jobs. There actually is a lot more science to it than we usually take credit for. There have been studies that our typical interview process gives us 17% predictability of how they will perform, but if we do a contract-to-hire (of just one week) that improves to 80%. We have proven time and time again that certain times of interview questions are not helpful. If yo…

> improves to 80%.

Sounds interesting. If you happen to have links to any articles about that, it'd be interesting to read

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#252

Post by cutemonster »

ikiris wrote: post #219
KerryJones wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have -- quite a few times in quite a few different jobs. There actually is a lot more science to it than we usually take credit for. There have been studies that our typical interview process gives us 17% predictability of how they will perform, but if we do a contract-to-hire (of just one week) that improves to 80%. We have proven time and time again that certain times of interview questions are not helpful. If yo…

you get 80% chance of the idiots willing to work supposed contract to hire positions. Not sure that's anywhere near the same thing.

Some people prefer to work as contractors since that tends to pay a lot more, and they might have many many offers to choose among. And, paired with (not in the US) a well functioning social welfare system in case of really bad luck

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#253

Post by KerryJones »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #165
KerryJones wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have -- quite a few times in quite a few different jobs. There actually is a lot more science to it than we usually take credit for. There have been studies that our typical interview process gives us 17% predictability of how they will perform, but if we do a contract-to-hire (of just one week) that improves to 80%. We have proven time and time again that certain times of interview questions are not helpful. If yo…

> There have been studies that our typical interview process gives us 17% predictability of how they will perform, but if we do a contract-to-hire (of just one week) that improves to 80%. The pool of candidates interested in full-time jobs is not the same as the pool of candidates interested in doing contract-to-hire positions. Contract-to-hire selects for people with the ability to risk working for a company for a p…

There are two different types of "contract-to-hire". This type, I'm talking about working for 1 week, most people think of "contract-to-hire" as a 6-month gig that _might_ turn into a position. This is more of a "trial week", but is still technically contract to hire. They are not two different types of people, but it is true that it is much harder for someone who has an existing position to take off 5 days -- but we did it in our company and made accommodations to make sure we fit. It also weeded out people who wouldn't fit.

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#254

Post by KerryJones »

cutemonster wrote: post #251
KerryJones wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have -- quite a few times in quite a few different jobs. There actually is a lot more science to it than we usually take credit for. There have been studies that our typical interview process gives us 17% predictability of how they will perform, but if we do a contract-to-hire (of just one week) that improves to 80%. We have proven time and time again that certain times of interview questions are not helpful. If yo…

> improves to 80%. Sounds interesting. If you happen to have links to any articles about that, it'd be interesting to read

I wish I kept the references, I didn't think they would be hard to refind but they have been. This is a reference I just found that's more recent (I found the others around 2016): https://www.qualified.io/blog/posts/truly-predictive-softwar...

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#255

Post by bakuninsbart »

grifball wrote: post #12

>My favorite part of the photographic process was watching prints come to life. I loved starting with a blank sheet of paper and applying various photographic methods to bring the image to life. >I found that building websites was similarly satisfying. For example, click the "Reveal Image" button to watch an image fade in to the blank canvas! I think a lot about why I went into computer science and this is the same c…

This was my go-to answer for why I started programming, too. Only recently I realized that it didn't hold true for me, the real drive I think was wanting to explore things. I loved computers, and games, and naturally was very curious about wanting to understand why and how they worked.

Understanding driving motivations is so incredibly important, as it now gives me quite a lot more perspective in which direction I want to take my career and hobbies.

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#256

Post by albrewer »

tayo42 wrote: post #215
albrewer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar thing happened to me. I had to take a C++ course (with C++ 2008 on Windows) and hated the way it was taught. I conflated that with hating programming. After I finished my engineering degree, I got frustrated with repetitive tedious manual processes, so I started automating them. As my skill grew, I realized I liked programming more than I liked being a mechanical engineer. Now I write code full time, but I'd…

But since then have you gone back and learned all of that stuff from those classes? Is the point of school to make you interested in the first place or just assume you already found the topic interesting and see the value and you want to learn more

Yes, sort of. I haven't taken a deep dive into anything like how to implement an OS, and I know I'm woefully undereducated about networking and the internet, but I have a tough time learning stuff without a concrete problem to solve that will make my life better. For example, I've written plenty of stuff that uses Python's requests library, but I don't know what happens under the hood between me making the library call and the network packets leaving the PC. I'd like to learn, but I don't have any problems facing me that would require that skillset or anything tangentially related.

As far as programming itself and designing software, I think I have learned as much as I would have retained in an undergraduate degree in CS. I have a minor in math and I took some basic circuits courses, and Ben Eater's YouTube channel has been hugely illuminating in areas of CS.

Really, if I could find places that are something like "solve this useful problem, here are the requirements, you'll need to know these 10 keywords to search stuff on the internet, here's how it'll be useful later" and then have someone or something evaluate my work, I'd love to see it.

Re: I was rejected by Codecademy three times, so I built my own

#257

Post by cutemonster »

KerryJones wrote: post #254
cutemonster wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> improves to 80%. Sounds interesting. If you happen to have links to any articles about that, it'd be interesting to read

I wish I kept the references, I didn't think they would be hard to refind but they have been. This is a reference I just found that's more recent (I found the others around 2016): https://www.qualified.io/blog/posts/truly-predictive-softwar...

Thanks! I've seen that article, it was posted at HN 1.5 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22704116

Turns out I still had it open, half read, in one of my 100+ browser tabs :-)

Nice to hear that you recommend it. (Hmm I wonder if maybe some of the other things you've read were also based on Schmidt & Hunter, 1998?)

I have in mind to do as they recommend (incl work sample tests and structured interviews and work knowledge tests), when/if later on I'll look for people to help me with the software I'm creating.

I wonder b.t.w. if you know about any automatically generated GMA tests?

(Edit: I found some, I can post a link if you want.)

It'd be nice if there were ways to auto generate GMA tests. Then maybe it could be just fine if everyone was allowed to practice as how as they wanted -- if there was an unlimited supply of new questions, because they were auto generated.

Maybe something with generating random 3D shapes and applying rotations.

But then it seems to me it's necessary to measure how well begin good at such things, correlates with being able to learn and get good at software, and scrap any poorly correlated tests.

Post reply on HN