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

Hiring Is Broken?

software.rajivprab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#81

Post by paulsutter »

esotericn wrote: post #4

This article appears to be an extremely long-winded way of stating that you don't have to pick from the top-end. Which is true. Companies know this. Most of the stuff I read here is basically made up of people who aren't quite the best moaning that they couldn't get a job at Google or whatever. Life goes on. It is impractical and not a good thing for every software developer, even the very good ones, to pile into the…

The key is to find the gems systematically overlooked by FANG, etc. It's actually great that so many companies use the same criteria because they all share the same blind spots.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#82

Post by otras »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #36
otras wrote: post #5

One thing I’d add is that live coding exercises can vary widely in quality. > If you solve the problem, you’re scored highly. If you don’t, you’re scored poorly. In my own opinion, this is a terrible way to look at these problems, though many people do use this metric. This is further emphasized by HackerRank-style exercises where you have to pass all test cases. This is robotic and not empathic at all. A more fluid…

This is a popular sentiment but it’s still false. A hiring committee isn’t going to pass you if you don’t finish the problem (ideally multiple problems) optimally.

For a counter example, I know that I didn’t finish a problem but did make it through. I’m not sure such blanket statements apply.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#83

Post by mobjack »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #36
otras wrote: post #5

One thing I’d add is that live coding exercises can vary widely in quality. > If you solve the problem, you’re scored highly. If you don’t, you’re scored poorly. In my own opinion, this is a terrible way to look at these problems, though many people do use this metric. This is further emphasized by HackerRank-style exercises where you have to pass all test cases. This is robotic and not empathic at all. A more fluid…

This is a popular sentiment but it’s still false. A hiring committee isn’t going to pass you if you don’t finish the problem (ideally multiple problems) optimally.

It depends on the committee.

I am more looking into how a candidate thinks than if they get the problem correct.

It is more telling when someone is able to logically work through a problem they never seen before even if it isn't optimal or even correct.

I am more skeptical of those who blow through a hard problem getting the optimal solution right away. It likely means they memorized it or had lots of practice on such type of problems. I don't hold it against them, but often have to throw in some curve ball follow ups to see if they really know there stuff.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#84

Post by phkahler »

o10449366 wrote: post #6
esotericn wrote: post #4

This article appears to be an extremely long-winded way of stating that you don't have to pick from the top-end. Which is true. Companies know this. Most of the stuff I read here is basically made up of people who aren't quite the best moaning that they couldn't get a job at Google or whatever. Life goes on. It is impractical and not a good thing for every software developer, even the very good ones, to pile into the…

Could the system be better? Yes. But there's also a ridiculous amount of entitlement in the tech industry. There are very few other industries where someone with a bachelors degree or no college degree at all can obtain a low to mid six figure job with no prior work experience + benefits. Even for the average experienced hire, who's compensation can easily exceed that of the average doctor, it isn't like things get w…

>> moaning or a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

As someone who has spent more time on the hiring side than the job seeker side over the last 10 years, I find these articles funny. I ask myself if each method could tell me what I need to know about a candidate. For many, the answer is no. Then I ask myself if I think the remaining method are fair and often the answer is no. Then I think about how much hassle they are for the candidate and the best methods seem really onerous for the candidate.

I always come back to the way I handle it. And now that I'm looking for a job again I had one interview where the technique impressed me enough to change my style a bit in the future, or at least add some options to what is a dynamic process.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#85

Post by alexandercrohde »

necovek wrote: post #78
alexandercrohde wrote: post #53

For those of you not reading this article (appears to be most) - this is a META article: 1. Main thrust is that all the HN posts on this topic are stupid and formulaic 2. Argues that numerous the OTHER posts merely list the negatives for one method of interviewing A, and the positives for another method B. 3. Lists every method of interviewing, showing glaring problems and advantages in each of them. Obviating the ne…

I've read it, and while it starts with a request for a double-blind study, it immediatelly moves on to listing a subset of interviewing techniques. It is by no means exhaustive. If the focus was to be on evidence, it would provide a framework for such a study. It generally sounds pretty hard to do anything of the sort.

>> I've read it, and while it starts with a request for a double-blind study, it immediately moves on to listing a subset of interviewing techniques.

Uh, what? It start by saying "I can’t keep track of the number of articles I’ve read about hiring in the past few years. Inevitably, they all follow the exact same format"

That point is true.

The question then becomes "Why does the community generate spammy articles without making any sincere attempt at intellectual progress toward a better system?"

And the answer is probably that it's not in any individual's self-interest. HN members want to whine about not getting hired by google, companies want to promote themselves, people like me want validation.

The only people who have any incentive/interest in objective hiring are companies that specialize in that purpose (e.g. hired, interviewing.io). But there's really no reason for them to divulge their secret sauce, and even if they did, people would probably only upvote it if it let them feel less insecure about getting rejected by google.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#86

Post by 0x445442 »

esotericn wrote: post #17
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have generally been rather disappointed with Google/FANG software developers. These companies generally though not always avoid the bottom 1/3 of the talent pool, but that’s about it. Effectively they simply select for people willing to hack their hiring process, which also excludes most actually talented developers. Resulting in a few very talented people, and an overall average workforce. This is also why most in…

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Fundamentally, companies do not hire for raw technical ability. Would you hire Linus for your bog standard dev role? Of course not. He'd be bored in days. You probably wouldn't want a supermodel as a life partner. The whole thing is about selecting model employees. People who will rock the boat in the correct ways; need money, but are neither impoverished nor independent; are reliable; an…

> Would you hire Linus for your bog standard dev role? Of course not. He'd be bored in days.

I've often wondered if Rob Pike or Guido Van Rossum went through the same interview process at Google that we all hear stories about. I'd be very surprised if they did and my guess is, for them, it was much more of a negotiation of what they were going to work on and what their compensation was going to be.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#87

Post by dahart »

> Anyone can glamorize and exaggerate the work they have done, and make it sound a lot more impressive than it actually was

My personal experience interviewing is that people cannot easily glamorize their past projects when pressed for details. It might be easy to make it look good on a resume, but hard in person during a discussion with follow up questions.

I think asking about past projects is a fantastic interview question, and it’s very easy to get a good sense of what they did, what they were trying to do, how much was their leadership versus others, how successful it was, how much effort it took. All you have to do is ask questions about it, and not take the resume item at face value.

Personally, I find the open ended nature of the past projects question to be a better predictor of future performance than almost everything else on that list.

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#88

Post by projektir »

bentona wrote: post #7

I wonder if people describing hiring as "broken" have only experienced the process from one side. Hiring is a one of my favorite things to work on at my software engineering jobs, because it's a super-hard problem that is always available. It hasn't been "solved" and lots of people do it in ways that are obviously sub-optimal, but I don't think anyone knows how to do it optimally. I think this is what TFA is getting…

Being on the other side of the process has only convinced me more of how broken it is. There are lots of baseline errors, biases, and insufficient attention given to the process that are quite obvious but a lot of people either fail to see them or refuse to see them because they don't want to admit that their hiring process is not better than rolling dice.

As a basic example, in a lot of places you get very little advance warning that you're going to interview someone.

Test problems or assignments are often not tested or even looked at by existing employees, so often you don't even know that your current team would do well on them.

Sometimes interviews happen without any intention at all to hire the candidate (wtf).

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#89

Post by streetcat1 »

ebiester wrote: post #55

This goes back to the idea that there is a "fungible" programmer that is universally substitutable between companies. In some companies, I am a highly valuable addition. In others, I am mediocre at best. I think of this like a sports team - a highly performing sports team both needs people of the highest skill and complementary role players that are the best at a valuable skill even if they aren't the best at every s…

So if you are not good at coding/recent tech, how do you know if a given solution is high quality or not?

Re: Hiring Is Broken?

#90

Post by projektir »

gridlockd wrote: post #43
GoToRO wrote: post #40

Well, none of the above. Anytime you try to gauge someone by counting, it's not going to work well. You need the best developer at your company, to do the hiring. Filtered by HR for personality and so on.

Your "best developer" probably doesn't want someone better than them on the job.

Only if your definition of "best developer" is extremely narrow, maybe, since a typical "best developer" would want someone around they could learn from, no? And why would this issue be more common among "best" developers over the, err, non-"best" developers.

*ample use of scare quotes because I found "different developers work well in different situations or best with certain people" to be more true than "there's this 'best' developer let's clone them".

Post reply on HN