The rise of never-ending job interviews • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#981

Post by salamanderman » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

Twirrim wrote: post #908

notJim wrote: post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one evaluates your interview questions Are you saying each interviewer just makes up their own questions?! That's ludicrous if so. Where I work, we have a standardized pool, with standardized evaluation criteria.

Everyone makes up their own. I can't for the life of me fathom how this doesn't subject them to all sorts of discrimination etc. claims (one of the reasons lots of companies favour standardised questions). Obviously the drawback for FAANG is that standardised questions would rather rapidly leak. Very quickly you'll just end up with candidates that know how to answer your questions. Where I work now, it's a mix of poo…

Adapting to the candidate is probably good most of the time, but don't work too hard to make that happen. Computational geometry is on my resume, and interviewers are always trying to show that they know that too by trying to bend their question into that. The exercise very often detours as they've led me way down a wrong path because they're analogy doesn't fit, and all they wanted to know was if I knew about minimum spanning trees or even just heaps.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#982

Post by KETpXDDzR » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

Can't confirm. Not at all. I interviewed during COVID, around summer 2020, and really preferred the adjusted interview process. I interviewed w/ Facebook, NVIDIA, TwoSigma, Citadel, Google, Apple, Cerebras, Rivian, and Amazon. I usually got feedback a week or two after the final interview. It's quiet common in this industry that hiring managers and headhunters "ghost" you instead of sending a message if they think you're not worth their time.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#983

Post by finjo » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

silisili wrote: post #119

My one and only Google interview went this way years ago. Each round they'd send me more books to study, which frankly I couldn't be bothered to read given the circumstances. My experience ended when an interviewer in round 3 or 4 asked me an obviously scripted question. I answered sarcastically, he got peeved, and I never heard from them again. I'm not claiming I'm Google caliber, whatever that means. Obviously I'm…

Google actually has simplified the process. It turns out that multiple rounds of interviews didn't lead to better-quality hires and just serves to piss people off.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#984

Post by galaxies » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

I read this article yesterday. Then literally two companies rejected me with the follwoing reasons today! I found it a funny coincidence so posted it here :)

(a) You are clearly too technical, we need a more managerial experience for this role

(b) You have too much managerial experience but for this role we need a more technical person.

Similar roles in leadership area, different companies.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#985

Post by sudcha » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

Long interview rounds are not only a significant cost for companies, but also for individuals.

Each hour of interview costs a company ~$100, in the time of the interview alone, not to mention scheduling overhead, frustration and recruiter's time spent. 5 rounds for 5 candidates == $2,500 (1 week's salary on average at big tech beginner roles).

For each candidate, that's 5 * (whatever they are getting paid, let's say $50) == $250.

If companies think of it this way, they might as well get some candidates for short amount of time to see a fit, instead of countless rounds spanning months.

Ideally, they should also compensate interviewees for their time, which I doubt will ever happen.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#986

Post by DoubleGlazing » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

I refuse to engage in long interview processes or technical/programming tests.

My CV goes back 20 years and it is quite clear about what my technical skills are. For me the most I will do is one phone interview, one HR interview and one technical interview. If the recruiter has any questions about my skills they can ask them in the technical interview and I can also put them in touch with people who can vouch for me as well.

I've experienced a few recruitment processes where there were multiple round and also take home tests that took up way to much of my time. To me the time investment required to go though these is too high as the risk of coming away with nothing is too great.

If a potential employer can't figure me out from my CV and a few interviews then I don't think that is a place I would want to work.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#987

Post by DoubleGlazing » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #602

vmception wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to invalidate ageism, there are many threads about younger people's interviewing experience that match this. The competition (other candidates) are doing much more than that, and also studying and practicing leetcode much longer than I am willing to.

Well, one way that this works, is that older folks, that have gotten used to working in an environment of mutual respect, and have some modicum of self-respect, are less likely to put up with BS, as opposed to someone younger, who may have come from a ... less professional climate. The idea is to drive out older, less-pliant potential employees, in favor of newer ones, who can be molded into a shape the corporation p…

I've been told by at least one manager that he disliked older devs because they are much more likely to push back against against poor management and refuse to put in overtime.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#988

Post by atoav » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

balls187 wrote: post #806

atoav wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird. When I was casting for actors instead of trying to "trick them into doing something bad" and throwing them out, I tried my best to get it to work with them, even if it meant I had to do something different. A casting is always stressful, they don't need me as an enemy as well. If they are not good enough with a ton of help, they won't be good enough period. If they are really good with a little of help, they c…

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and in light of the role unconscious biases plays in hiring, I'm challenging my own beliefs on how to run an interview. How does an interviewer ensure all candidates are offered help fairly and equally? What is the purpose of asking a question, that if a solution is found after "hints" are offered, would be acceptable for hiring?

If the question you are answering has a "right" answer you are asking the wrong question. E.g. if you search for a web dev, give them a problem and some constraints (e.g. language), ask them to draft a quick solution.

When they are unsure then they will usually ask about the problem or about how the problem should be solved (microservice, shell script, ...)

These are valid questions and you can turn them into more knowledge about the candidate by asking them what pros/cons they see by going each route.

Just like that I have actors that want to know more about the role and actors that need less guidance. In the end their performance counts. I will still try to give them hints inbetween takes (just like I would when we work together on the set) — but in the end it is their work which I will judge.

Unless you are hiring for a position where a dev works in complete isolation and receives no guidance whatsoever I think emulating the real thing is the way to go. And that usually doesn't entail holding a devs hand and neither it does entail not helping them at all.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#989

Post by m-ee » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #903

m-ee wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've interviewed for ME, EE, FW, and SW roles. It's not better in hardware. There's an equivalent to all the things people are complaining about here. Take home coding challenge -> take home hw design challenge where they expect you to have access to expensive software. I got a FW challenge once that assumed I had two different dev boards on hand. Spot the bugs in this printed out code? Find everything wrong with thi…

> Spot the bugs in this printed out code? Find everything wrong with this schematic in 5 minutes. I don't consider those terribly unfair. Depending upon how the discussion goes, I could see myself doing something like this. For example, one of my standard questions for firmware people is a state machine in Verilog (for those who claim to know Verilog). What I'm looking for is whether you know the difference between b…

I have no problem with spotting schematic issues (or spotting code issues) given appropriate time to do it. I actually prefer these to rushed questions where you have to implement the solution because it lets me get into the design considerations without spending time drawing symbols or stumbling through syntax.

Last time I got that question it was a schematic large enough that I would have put it on multiple pages and I only had a few minutes to get through it, which was a problem. Brought it up because it seems to be a touch point for others.

Re: The rise of never-ending job interviews

#990

Post by abroadwin » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #470

MattGaiser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where I realised no one gave a shit about anything except my utility as a walking set of tech keywords. I am genuinely asking. Why is this objectionable? Why do people find it so horrible that their labour is a commodity? To me that just tells me I should treat my labour like a merchant treats his goods. Always be checking the market to ensure you have something worth selling and while you might sign long term deal…

"I am genuinely asking. Why is this objectionable?" Software engineering is at a schizophrenic point where it is very hard to categorize in either of traditional "blue collar" vocational job (given people seem to be employed close to very little formal schooling) or as a "white collar" professional job (given some roles need a CS degree level understanding of the fundamentals). Some roles are more the other than the…

More than anything else software engineering most closely resembles a trade.

The majority of useful education comes from mentorship and on-the-job experience. Sure, you can get a formal education, and sure it helps, but it doesn't make you a useful software engineer. It just gives you a foundation to build upon through mentorship and experience.