Hacker News Reader

Comment by dominotw | Hacker News Reader

I interviewed at airbnb in 2012 and the very first interviewer started with "your degree is not from a good school" like the very first sentence right to my face. He just seemed insulted that he has to spend time with someone lesser like me.

I've never applied to any other sfo startup after that but won't be surprised if that attitude is common at other places.

Complete sob story here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11291155

View on HN

This is sadly common in the supposedly meritocratic startup land. Two large startups I recently worked with didn't even bother recruiting new grads outside of about ten universities, and also placed overly high importance on the universities of even experienced hires. Their reasoning was that they only wanted "the best" employees. I understand that college admission boards already act as a sort of pre-recruiting filter to select competitive students, but it just seems absurd to exclude 95+% of available employees based on a single credential.

I had someone ask that once in an interview. My response was I got into a better school, but sitting in classes I was less than impressed.

This seemed to upset them, but I may have accidentally dissed their school.

Honestly, I think it's mostly insecurity on their part. If you spend 3+ years going somewhere you like to think it was a good 'deal' even if you overpay for a sub par education.

I'm at a Canadian school and work for a pretty well known prof (well known in my field, at least). The more I've encountered people who've always been in "elite" institutions, the less I've been impressed.

Computer Science or Mathematics?

You may not have directly dissed their school. My impression of these types of people is that they have the group-think mentality, so if you insult one school in that group you just insulted them all.

I didn't see that discussion previously, but it sounds like a potential example of "Death by Lethal Reputation" as detailed by the Ask the Headhunter guy: http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/halethalrep.htm

And it really sucks; while I didn't go to it for CS, I attended one of the best 4 schools in the world for that, and while interviewing as I've done in times past, would never dream of assuming a fellow alum who got a CS degree was definitely competent, nor that someone like you couldn't prove to me you were.

In the future, if anyone ever does this to you during an interview again, do:

A. Stand up

2. Collect your things

D. Say, "Fuck. Right. Off."

And then walk out.

Or you can be diplomatic about it. Tell the interviewer that you don't think the company will be a right fit for you instead of telling them to fuck off.

This is not a case of not being a good fit, in which being diplomatic is the right move. This is a recruiter/company passing a subjective and intentionally insulting assessment on a candidate at the outset. This is a brazen power play to increase the existing imbalance of power further toward the recruiter/company, by devaluing the candidate as the opening move. And there is more the OP said about what happened in the interview. That opening statement was intentional psychological fuckery.

Don't ever let anyone devalue or dehumanize you. Tell them to fuck off every time.

My first inclination upon hearing this situation was to reply with something along the lines of "if you're putting that much stock in my school, that just tells me you're not qualified to judge me by my merits as an engineer, so please stop wasting everyone's time. Good-bye."

I definitely agree a move like that is an abusive tactic, but I guess I feel a simple "fuck off" doesn't cut quite deep enough. A concise, polite, retort that actually attacks their competence is even better IMO. A bit harder for them to mentally write off than "that guy was just bitter that I won the conversation"

Heh. Yours is the right hook followed by a left jab type of fuck off. One could also merely walk out without saying a word. The method matters little. Drawing the line and communicating it is what matters.

Delayed reply, but, I think the method matters. How we act should driven by the context of the situation. In an interview I don't think telling someone to fuck off is effective. What you want to do is to rebuke the interviewer. The interviewer might be making the distinction of "elite school" == competence without even thinking about it, in this instance telling them to fuck off will probably just reinforce this view. There is no need to go from polite interview to full nuclear, "fuck off" is an unnecessary escalation.

If someone tells an interviewer to fuck off and walks out, you can always dismiss them as an asshole loser.

Telling an interviewer they're not qualified while keeping your dignity is far more effective.

The school question isn't a filter for competence but for social class - and if that matters in an interview, it's definitely not a good omen.

Occasionally I will have a phone conversation with a recruiter (external or internal), asking me if I know X or if I have Y years experience with Z. When I tell them I do not, they always something to the effect of "oh, we are looking for someone that really knows X".

At that point, I thank them for their time and wish them well. They always start backtracking and then say it is not an issue.

Oh, of course. It's all relational power dynamics. With this approach, you can always be diplomatic and stop the recruiter from wasting your time further. It's the obvious move in the game to call them on their bluff, as it's a mild form of trying to put you in a box of "this person doesn't fit our requirements, so we can make them a lower offer and say this is why". But as soon as a recruiter starts saying things meant to insult, devalue, or put you on the defensive, that's where you draw the line.

While my Alma Matter is often the butt of jokes I often say "Arizona State was the best school my family and I could afford." Once I became an AZ resident, tuition was less than $500 a semester.

Granted this was in the early 90's, when tuitions varied wildly and kids were less informed of differences between the school. Not sure this argument is meaningful now since just about every school is unaffordable without financial-aid and information is more accessible.

This also demonstrates a cultural/demographic bias. At 17 I would have told you MIT and NYC's Apex Tech were both "tech" schools, but Apex tech was a better deal because you got a box of tools with your diploma and it only takes 6 weeks. I wonder if this level of ignorance is even possible now.

There doesn't seem to be much difference between the courses at "elite" universities and regular ones, difference is the student selection criteria. I'm surprise anybody will ask about your school if you've been more than a couple years out of it.

I posted this article because I think our obsessions with "elite" universities is bad for society.

With that said, there is a difference in the courses. I went to MIT for grad school after Berkeley and met many students from lower ranked schools. They were always the top student in their school. They also all complained they were underprepared because their schools had crappy courses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com