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

I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

triplebyte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 426 posts

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#331

Post by Sophistifunk »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #263
dunpeal wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most engineering interviewees fail to advance because of cultural/personality/communication issues and not technical competence. Not my experience. At least when hiring for programming positions, the typical fatal issue is that the candidate's coding is weak. In my first role as a hiring manager, I didn't stress coding tests for candidates with long work history on their resume. Since then, I learned better. I've s…

They can't code because you are looking figuratively over their shoulder---the clock is ticking next to a hundred grand in a suitcase. A single question is pulled from subjects vast enough to fill up years of college and there is no time to research, as one would in the real world. Binary pass/fail with your pride/livelyhood/family on the line. Please state your last exam conducted under such conditions? Oh and your…

One possible way to address this issue is by asking candidates to talk about some existing code you give them, rather than trying to cook something up off the bat while under scrutiny and not having access to their familiar tooling.

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#332

Post by mixmastamyk »

bsder wrote: post #302
mixmastamyk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't code because you are looking figuratively over their shoulder---the clock is ticking next to a hundred grand in a suitcase. A single question is pulled from subjects vast enough to fill up years of college and there is no time to research, as one would in the real world. Binary pass/fail with your pride/livelyhood/family on the line. Please state your last exam conducted under such conditions? Oh and your…

> They can't code because you are looking figuratively over their shoulder---the clock is ticking next to a hundred grand in a suitcase. There is a difference between me asking you how to optimize a graph algorithm (good luck--I probably couldn't do that on the fly with references in front of me) vs giving me a basic FizzBuzz. If I let you pick your language for your FizzBuzz, you need to demonstrate at least some of…

You may get only those questions in a junior interview. I get the optimize a graph algorithm ones also.

Now I certainly could do it in the course of a job within a week, with a day or two of research. But not under the gun.

That is the tech interview failure in a nutshell.

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#333

Post by pmiller2 »

gnicholas wrote: post #270
wst_ wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just say he's no fit for the organization. Safe and at least partially fair for the candidates.

Interestingly, if they give concrete technical reasons why people weren't hired in most cases, then telling some people that they were "not a fit" could actually raise a red flag. Basically, it tells them that there was no technical reason not to hire them, which raises the question of whether it was something illegitimate.

It may raise the question, but it’s not evidence, and it’s not actionable. No lawyer would ever take a case based on a lack of interview feedback, or “not a fit.”

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#334

Post by marvy »

hm10 wrote: post #305
btilly wrote: post #141

I believe that the article is fundamentally wrong. The bulk of the article is true. But companies are not lying when they say that legal risk is a reason not to send feedback. Triplebyte is in the unusual position of being able to say, "Everyone who has enough technical skill gets through the interview." And that fact is sufficient to defuse their risk. But real companies don't have the luxury of ignoring non-technic…

Well that sucks for the person if they were rejected because of their accent and no feedback was given. All that hard work in preparing for interviews and you don't even know for sure why they didn't pick you.

I partly agree and yet... surely the candidate noticed that communicating was difficult?

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#335

Post by pmiller2 »

taneq wrote: post #311
mixmastamyk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't code because you are looking figuratively over their shoulder---the clock is ticking next to a hundred grand in a suitcase. A single question is pulled from subjects vast enough to fill up years of college and there is no time to research, as one would in the real world. Binary pass/fail with your pride/livelyhood/family on the line. Please state your last exam conducted under such conditions? Oh and your…

We always get these kinds of responses when interview testing is mentioned. This isn't some high-level algorithm analysis on a whiteboard with a panel of examiners grilling you. This is a simple test of basic competence. It's like interviewing a candidate Formula 1 driver and asking them "so which bit's the brake pedal?" If they can't tell you that instantly then they shouldn't be applying for the position in the fir…

I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a “which is the brake pedal” level question in an onsite interview. Usually it’s more like I’m a mechanic being asked “how do you replace the water pump on a 1999 Saturn Ion, from memory, please.”

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#336

Post by whydoineedthis »

you could also just give feedback in the cases where it is requested. As a fresh-faced out of college coder I was rejected from ThoughtWorks after spending 3 days on a coding question. Yes, I sucked - all I wanted to hear though was "we really wanted to see TDD, even though it was optional" or whatever. I asked for feedback, they didn't give it, I now and forever will have a negative impression of their company and will avoid them - and often people whom have worked for them - technicality be damned. You don't always need to give feedback, but a little compassion for those that are new would be nice.

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#337

Post by richardknop »

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #232
dunpeal wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my experience, someone who really wants to code and shows a minimum viable capacity for doing so is the person I want to hire. My comment referred specifically to candidates with at least one year of full-time hands-on development experience under their belt. The typical candidate I interviewed had 3+ years of experience. If you want to code, then you should have ample opportunity to do so during a year or more…

> If you were working in a full-time programming position for over 3 years yet you can't write even a trivial amount of working code during the interview, then clearly you either lack the capacity or the will to develop your programming skills. Genuine question... What kind of question(s) would I ask to get someone to demonstrate they can code? If my questions are effective, I'm fine. But if my questions stink, it'd…

For simple questions to verify a person has basic programming competency, I'd keep it very simple. Any simple problem which requires you to use if / else if / else or switch case, or something involving simple for / while loop. This is something any programmer should be able to demonstrate.

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#338

Post by watwat1 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #328
taneq wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We always get these kinds of responses when interview testing is mentioned. This isn't some high-level algorithm analysis on a whiteboard with a panel of examiners grilling you. This is a simple test of basic competence. It's like interviewing a candidate Formula 1 driver and asking them "so which bit's the brake pedal?" If they can't tell you that instantly then they shouldn't be applying for the position in the fir…

> We always get these kinds of responses… Perhaps you should start listening. > This isn't some high-level algorithm analysis on a whiteboard with a panel of examiners grilling you. Happened to me just three months ago. The req is still open, wonder why? To reiterate: - Exams have a topic known in advance. - Exams never have a person sitting there waiting for the answer. - Exams are never 1 or 2 questions binary pass…

No point in being bitter.

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#339

Post by duxup »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #282
duxup wrote: post #186

I WISH I could get rejection emails. I'll talk to a recruiter at a company, exchange emails, even meet them .... 99.9% of the time if they're not offering I get NOTHING. They just don't respond. I don't care that they're not hiring me, I'd just like some feedback. FEEDBACK PLEASE, anything that really matters that I can improve on or such. It is to the point that even automated rejection letters seem nicer than the u…

I was once told by a recruiter that she absolutely guaran-damn-teed that she would call me after the interview process and let me know the employer's decision. Guaran-damn-teed. After my in-person interview, about a month passed with no contact from her. I figured I didn't get the job. But I wanted to call her anyway, just because. She said, "Oh, I thought I sent you an email about it. Yeah, they don't want you."

Same, it's a pretty terrible system.

Re: I know why rejection emails suck – I write them

#340

Post by mixmastamyk »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #328
taneq wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We always get these kinds of responses when interview testing is mentioned. This isn't some high-level algorithm analysis on a whiteboard with a panel of examiners grilling you. This is a simple test of basic competence. It's like interviewing a candidate Formula 1 driver and asking them "so which bit's the brake pedal?" If they can't tell you that instantly then they shouldn't be applying for the position in the fir…

> We always get these kinds of responses… Perhaps you should start listening. > This isn't some high-level algorithm analysis on a whiteboard with a panel of examiners grilling you. Happened to me just three months ago. The req is still open, wonder why? To reiterate: - Exams have a topic known in advance. - Exams never have a person sitting there waiting for the answer. - Exams are never 1 or 2 questions binary pass…

You'll get bitter when the rent is due, watwat.
Post reply on HN