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

391–400 of 426 posts

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

#391

Post by irq11 »

dunpeal wrote: post #322
0xfeba wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This topic was pretty lively last time I commented about my interviewing practices. Coding is a creative effort -- yes. It's not objective. But I see no other way to test if the person is competent than sitting them down with a problem to solve -- if only to have them explain what they do and don't understand, and what their process is.

This is a key point. I see a lot of criticism of the coding interview. But what's the viable alternative? My goal is to figure out the candidate can do their job - write software - and that myself and the rest of my team would enjoy working closely with them on their daily tasks. How else do I figure that out, if not by a coding exercise?

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do a coding exercise. I’m saying that coding exercises are overrated and far too difficult.

Programmers today think that TopCoder questions are “FizzBuzz” tests. That’s idiotic. Joel Sposky wrote that blog post to say that you should do an absolutely minimal check that someone can write code, then move on to more important things. It’s just bizarre how people have twisted that over the years.

But to answer your question: focus on what matters. Communication, writing skill, the ability to read code (this is easily 10x more important than algorithmic wizardry IRL), good habits (e.g. “does this person insist on putting all of their code in a single file?” - an actual thing I have seen!!), opinions that match your team, etc.

All of these things can be answered in interviews, but nobody cares to try.

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

#392

Post by adwn »

slg wrote: post #348
simsla wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Any data exhibits random patterns, especially if you try too hard. If you check for 10 patterns, each at the 95% significance level (p That's why science requires you to formulate a hypothesis before running the experiment. And why finding a pattern through data analysis does not warrant a witch hunt.

I don't know what to tell you. It isn't my opinion. It is the law. [1] You can't just saw "No." and be done with it. It also isn't about setting up a witch hunt. It is about protecting people from discriminatory practices even when the discrimination is neither overt or even intentional. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

simsla is giving a reason why that's a bad law – they're not disagreeing that this law exists. A law can have been well-intentioned by legislators yet get abused in practice.

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

#393

Post by canthonytucci »

brennebeck wrote: post #353
canthonytucci wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was so difficult to accomplish even basic things because our experiences were so different that we didn't have common ground to work from. I am curious what kind of work this was, if you can share. I had a lot of difficulty in the past when working in situations where there was "life-experience" context to the problem space that was not shared by the whole team. But we had to get the job done so we worked around…

Sure, you try to make lemonade. That doesn’t mean it will be a success.

Have you seen Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back?

I've never heard "try to make lemonade" only "make lemonade"

In my experience difficult problems can be solved if people keep a good attitude and are invested in making things work, even when success seems unlikely.

But sometimes you will fail.

I was interested to know what sort of problem space the parent had their bad experience in, and to hear more about how things didn't work out. I don't doubt that there are domains where a "can do attitude" will not cut it.

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

#394

Post by tptacek »

michaelt wrote: post #379
tptacek wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm being unclear. I'm asking: why does there need to be video or telephonic oversight of any sort for a work-sample challenge? Why are you assigning yourself that problem? We've never done that and never had a problem.

Ah, you mean a take-home test? Some people involved in our hiring process don't like them, they say experienced candidates stop responding when sent take-home tests. Their theory is employed people with families don't have the time - although we don't have hard empirical evidence for this for obvious reasons.

People don't do take-home tests because companies give them in addition to interview loops. I'm saying, just do the at-home test, and cut out the interviews.

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

#395

Post by ConceptJunkie »

Insanity wrote: post #3

At least you get a response even if it is a rejection letter. I have heard - not experienced - that sometimes you just don't hear back from the company at all, which seems worse to me.

I haven't had much interviewing experience lately, since I was at my last job for 5 years and at my current job for 6, but over the past 15 years or so, I came to the conclusion that not hearing back was the norm rather than the exception. I think it's ludicrously unprofessional, but that's typical these days.

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

#396

Post by ericdykstra »

carlmr wrote: post #390
ericdykstra wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a small part of why anti-discrimination laws are harmful. Companies can't be honest because they need to cover for potential discrimination lawsuits. If you go a step further, a truly racist company is never going to hire someone of a race they look down on, but they can't put anything on a job description about it, so they just end up wasting a minority's time.

>they just end up wasting a minority's time. They also waste their own time, so there's some good coming out of it. But I wouldn't say unintelligible accent is racism. I've met some unintelligible people that were born and raised where I live. An accent is also something you can change (even though it's hard). So it would be really valuable feedback to the person who's not getting it.

_You_ wouldn't say an unintelligible accent is racism, but a civil court might. It's valuable feedback for the candidate, but it's high risk (high magnitude, even if chance of happening is low) and near-zero reward for the company.

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

#397

Post by mixmastamyk »

taneq wrote: post #375
mixmastamyk wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We're talking about "basic fizz-buzz level coding questions". It sounds like you had a bad experience with something else that we weren't talking about. (As for 'topic known in advance', I'd suggest that if you don't know what topics that you might be asked about in a job interview, maybe you shouldn't be interviewing for that job.)

There’s very little correlation.

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

#398

Post by mixmastamyk »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #365
dunpeal wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a benefit of the coding interview, actually. We don't ask you about that particular feature of some library from 10 years ago, which is basically a luck question: you either happen to know or you don't. We ask you to code a simple task that you should be able to do in your favorite programming language. Not entirely sure how the discussion of coding interviews veered towards obscure knowledge interviews - the…

We ask people to implement a relatively simple algorithm, that’s particularly practical, in the language of their choice. Then we change the parameters and ask them to make it more efficient. It’s centered around solving a reasonably common place problem, and doesn’t require anything fancy to solve. It’s more of a test in how they programmatically solve problems over anything else. If somebody struggles with it, then…

> they’ve just shown that they’re not going to be able to write clean code unsupervised.

The opposite, shown they can’t write supervised under the gun, which never happens On the job.

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

#399

Post by BrendanCoughlan »

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 had to twitch my feet to all three imaginary pedals to figure out the brake is the middle one. Even in this metaphor doing and knowing how to do are distinct skills.

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

#400

Post by btilly »

EliRivers wrote: post #385
presscast wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets right to the heart of the issue, IMHO. Hiring has become such a litigation-prone process that companies are now incentivized to leak as little information as possible. It's sad because nobody wins -- companies get sued for petty nothings, candidates who have been wronged have no recourse, and candidates aren't given the feedback they need to improve themselves. Our startup isn't hiring yet, but I must confe…

Hiring has become such a litigation-prone Where? I've never seen anyone sue a company for not hiring them, and no company I've ever worked at has been sued for not hiring someone. If it was litigation-prone, I'd expect to see some litigation. I don't work in the US; maybe this is a weird US thing? Maybe people who do work in the US can give us some numbers? What proportion of companies one has worked for have been su…

It is a weird US thing, and nobody can give you numbers because the existence and outcome of these lawsuits is never talked about (most are settled out of court).

But talk to anyone in HR and you'll hear, "The stories that I've seen, if only I could tell you!"

Post reply on HN