Comment by baron816 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by baron816 | Hacker News Reader

I've had a lot of trouble finding a job since shuttering my start up, which I constructed on my own. I open sourced my code, but no one seems to care. They still just look at me as if I have no experience and pass on me before a technical assessment.

It's troubling to know that engineers with many years of experience still have difficulties. Every job listing I see asks for someone with 6+ years, and the only feedback I ever get is "we're looking for someone with more experience, try again in 4 years."

Tech companies should really just hire for soft skills. Screw tech interviews completely. A lot of this stuff can be taught. Maybe just give people a contracted trial period. Companies are spending incredible sums of money just searching for candidates that meet their exact "needs." In reality, they're not going to know how well someone performs until they actually work with them. Stop wasting your employees' time by having them grade pointless coding quizzes. Use that time instead to train someone who's a good communicator, is passionate about the product, is creative and eager to learn, and wants build something your customers will love. Even if that doesn't work out, at least you didn't waste everyone's time.

You are arguing that we should just hire anyone regardless of tech skills if they can carry on a conversation? It takes years to do learn how to do actual complicated programming. I think we need to screen for both tech skills and soft/people skills. I always strive to do both in my interviews.

I'm not saying that, and I doubt there is a very high number of fraudulent applicants to companies. If that becomes an issue, then there are less terrible ways of dealing with it. Wha I am saying is that we should let people's experiences speak for themselves. If someone's been a developer for three years (and didn't get fired for incompetence), then they probably know how to code.

> I doubt there is a very high number of fraudulent applicants to companies

The payoff is a $100,000 salary that you can collect for a month or two, of course there are fraudulent applications.

> If someone's been a developer for three years (and didn't get fired for incompetence), then they probably know how to code

I've worked with very capable Ph.Ds with wonderful problem-solving & analytical skills who would write the worst code, and were the worst at accepting feedback because of their extremely visible and objective achievements allowed them to believe they didn't need to improve their coding skills (which had already gotten them so far)

Having been in your position, I understand that having built a product from the ground up makes you feel like you are qualified to do anything. I was lucky enough to get hired at a late-stage startup after my endeavor failed, and am constantly reminded that time in the industry matters. Two years of intense coding is worth a lot, but you've only been exposed to a limited set of problems, both technical and business. 6+ years sounds reasonable to me if they are looking for someone with well-rounded experience.

Mind you, as someone else mentioned, some folks spend 6 years in the industry and don't gain the knowledge and experience you already have, but that doesn't mean you've attained 6 years worth of knowledge and experience.

I don't claim to be as good as someone with six years of experience (I'm not delusional). Nor am I claiming that there are no companies that need to hire senior engineers. I'm well aware of many types of problems for which I am not qualified to solve. What I am asking is, does EVERY company need to exclusively hire senior engineers? I've interviewed at companies whose product was not much more than a CRUD app, and, despite performing fairly well in a technical assessment, was rejected for lack of experience (even though they could see how much experience I had right on my resume).

Most companies don't need the best of the best of the best. They can save a lot of time and money by hiring someone who, with just a little bit of investigation, they know is going to come in with some decent technical skills, and can quickly learn to become a valuable asset.

Companies with that mindset invest heavily in interns: you get a three-month work sample in your working environment & can (initially) offer them less than an experienced engineer.

Most companies have problems they needs solving right now or in the near future, not when an intern gets experienced enough to tackle it.

> come in with some decent technical skills, and can quickly learn to become a valuable asset

This sounds like you described a consultant.

Yeah I was in a similar position with a lot of code work from a startup that crashed (wasn't the founder, but 1st technical team member, and the founder ended up being useless as a reference) that people refused to look at.

One thing I unfortunately take from that period is a bitterness toward people who complain about whiteboard interviews, because I was never even given a chance to do coding problems. I understand that many of the complaints are rational (especially when the interview skills are totally misaligned from the on-the-job skills), but since I was stuck before that phase, I'd emotionally rather have less early filtering and more code-based interviews.

If I actually came into a position of hiring power, I'd take time to reevaluate and separate myself from the question, but that's the instinctual response my history has brought me to.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com