They Rejected Us • Hacker News Board

Re: They Rejected Us

#331

Post by democracy » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 2:06 AM UTC

giarc wrote: post #156

sho wrote: post #103

I still can't get over the fact that Google rejected mxcl, author of homebrew, possibly the most important piece of software on OSX, because he couldn't remember some useless piece of easily-googleable (ha) CS trivia on the spot. Even though they all run it internally. If that isn't the purest, most concentrated form of arbitrary, blind, own-goal beaureaucratic corporate idiocy I don't know what is. And people actual…

Similar to this one. Sebastian McKenzie @sebmck Facebook Got rejected from a junior position at Atlassian for not knowing enough about JavaScript. Shortly after they now use the JavaScript compiler that I wrote across most of their JavaScript stack. Or Ian Devlin @iandevlin Trivago Rejected by the Google HTML5 Developer Expert programme for not knowing enough about HTML5. Apparently being one of the HTML5 Doctors, wr…

For as long as I can remember Atlassian did everything they could to justify bringing cheaper people on working visas: thus 5-6 interviews, long pauses between each stage, lower-than-market salaries, public complaining by CEO for not having enough local resources for hiring - basically anything to make a local (Australian) programmer not to get a job.

Re: They Rejected Us

#332

Post by mcguire » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #292

throwaway5250 wrote: post #172

Try getting rejected at the final executive approval (i.e., their magic eight-ball) after passing the in-person day and the hiring committee. Once you've seen the inside of the hiring process, you'll never take this stuff personally again. It's utter garbage. At best, the process manages to select for a few traits that are probably useful, while de-selecting for others they didn't realize were crucial for ultimate su…

There was one company I applied to, for which I passed the screening and the technical interview, that I got a "Welcome Aboard" email from which also included paperwork for getting started. I just needed to meet the CEO as a last step, but they told me it was basically a formality and that I was hired. I arrived on time and was told to wait outside the CEO's office. Through the wall, I could hear him talking to someo…

Back about 2004, I had the same experience, minus the CEO, with Google.

Re: They Rejected Us

#333

Post by democracy » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

tlackemann wrote: post #170

Aunche wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tells you what to prepare for during an interview. I'm sure that if Max Howell spent a few hours reviewing data structures and algorithms like the rest of us, he would have passed with flying colors. His hostility towards his interview experience only reinforces that he likely wouldn't be a good fit in a large corporation like Google.

And that's exactly why I would never apply for Google. Despite me having years of leading product teams and enterprise applications, the fact that I need to "study" for an interview is asinine.

It's also absurd when the big companies invite you for a half-day interview with no intention to reimburse you for your time. I went for an Amazon interview and lost a day which for a contractor on a daily rate is quite a lot. Not making this mistake again :)

Re: They Rejected Us

#334

Post by ghaff » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 2:19 AM UTC

unnouinceput wrote: post #326

ghaff wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You become more expensive and you also typically get more specialized in the things that make you expensive. Even if you keep skills up in a variety of areas, you typically major on certain topics where you're really valued. There are a huge number of random things I could have been slotted into right out of school and I'd have done a good job. Today, my skills and compensation are much more specific.

Exactly this. As becoming older you also get experience, experience very few have. I was at one meeting with several people from a company that hired me as external contractor and several people from their client company. And an issue arrived at the table, a technical issue none of their staffers or client's staffer could explain/solve (both technical and non-technical people were at that meeting). So they asked me t…

The flip side is that, if expertise in XYZ is no longer valued, that can be an issue. I've known people who were essentially the world experts in some narrow area of technology or business and that became irrelevant which was a tough situation to be in.

It's easy to say that people should keep skills up-to-date but if you're truly a world-class expert in X, it's hard to transfer that level of skill to Y. That's a different level from junior competency in one language picking up another language.

I know someone at a largely military sub talking about bringing in "geezers" to consult on some very specific classes of problems.

Re: They Rejected Us

#335

Post by sergiotapia » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 3:17 AM UTC

pmden wrote: post #127

sho wrote: post #103

I still can't get over the fact that Google rejected mxcl, author of homebrew, possibly the most important piece of software on OSX, because he couldn't remember some useless piece of easily-googleable (ha) CS trivia on the spot. Even though they all run it internally. If that isn't the purest, most concentrated form of arbitrary, blind, own-goal beaureaucratic corporate idiocy I don't know what is. And people actual…

"possibly the most important piece of software on OSX" I'm earnestly trying to avoid downplaying his work, but it's only a package manager. Unless he was interviewing to be Google's next head of package management on OSX, I'm not sure why you think assessing him on something other than his useful side project is bad form. I'm also not certain how an answer being 'easily-googleable' makes it arbitrary or pointless. So…

You're acting like all the engineers at Google work on search algorithms and incredibly research-focused work.

I bet you they still have the footsoldiers out there building consumer facing products. You're telling me the guy who built Homebrew can't sprinkle some awesome dev ux to some of Google's tools?

Re: They Rejected Us

#336

Post by idontpost » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 3:20 AM UTC

kevinconaway wrote: post #254

idontpost wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's a two way street. Companies disrespect candidates by making them jump through irrelevant hoops. The job candidates didn't create this problem.

You're right, it is a two-way street. Candidates go in to the process hoping to get a job and employees go in to the process hoping to get a co-worker. Both are acting in good faith Most companies disclose what their process is up front and you're free to opt out at any time. Intentionally wasting the time of the recruiters and engineers at companies you don't want to work for just to "practice" just seems really rud…

> Most companies disclose what their process is up front

That's funny. You should do stand-up.

Re: They Rejected Us

#337

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 3:23 AM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #38

joshbetz wrote: post #7

Do practice interviews at companies you don't really want to work for. It takes the pressure off and makes the real interviews easier.

Who has time for that if you have a full time job? Do you spend all your vacation in interviewing?

[deleted]

Re: They Rejected Us

#338

Post by unixhero » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #269

spydum wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the problem is society seems to redraw it’s ethical boundaries every twenty years or so..

Yeah, twenty years ago it wasn't cool to work for nazis. And it still isn't. Do you have a different example in mind?

Say that to all the cosmetics companies, ThyssenKrupp, IBM and so on

Re: They Rejected Us

#339

Post by fenomas » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 3:36 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #188

fenomas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious explanation would be that the maintainer (who used to work there) hit up colleagues for stories, or because it circulated among Twitter employees for whatever other reason. It's not very likely to imply anything about Twitter's or Google's hiring.

It could also be that twitter has a better hiring process with fewer false negatives.

That's possible, sure, but the evidence here doesn't support that conclusion any more than it supports the reverse. When you have a small group of things that clearly weren't chosen at random, the safe bet is that they don't imply anything about the set from which they were selected.

Re: They Rejected Us

#340

Post by cataphract » Sat, Dec 08, 2018, 3:53 AM UTC

saidajigumi wrote: post #302

davnicwil wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I like the idea of this site but was disappointed to find most of the entries being something like I was rejected by Fashionable BigCo X and Y but then eventually got a job at Fashionable BigCo Z Which is great, it really is, but not really all that interesting (sorry!). You've only been rejected in a very narrow sense. Everyone has an off day, or off interviews. You were actually accepted by the mainstream, ev…

Vital meta lesson from this: I was rejected by Fashionable BigCo X and Y but then eventually got a job at Fashionable BigCo Z When we see that repeated for many successful people, I hope the takeaway becomes: your interview process is probably not doing what you think it is. In some cases this extends to the entire work culture. E.g. workplaces that situate themselves in a mindset equivalent to "we must hire the best…

Any hiring process will result in some good employees being rejected and bad employees being accepted. If your candidate pool is very large compared to the open positions, as is the case for the Fashionable BigCos, it makes sense to "tighten the mesh" in order to avoid the false positives better.