Can anyone from any of these companies confirm this? This strikes me as really odd. So only one employee from FB, Apple, Dropbox, and Stripe needs to interview a candidate that Tripplebyte say is a "Go"? I'm having a hard time believing that.
I'm considering using triplebyte, but also want to control where my applications are sent to.
I would argue that as a candidate I would rather interview with as many of my potential coworkers as possible. Interviewing is a two way street. The more exposure to the actual people I would be working with allows me to make a better-informed decision. How is reducing my exposure better for me the candidate? It seems its really better for Tripplebyte though and maybe the company looking to hire if they are short-staffed but not the candidate.
I think the idea is that if you do the first round with Triplebyte instead of with Apple, Facebook, Dropbox, or Stripe you are effectively doing the first round with Apple, Facebook, Dropbox, AND Stripe.
Except that I am not. By doing the first rounds with Tripplebyte I have squandered an opportunity to learn about and form an opinion about the people and team I might be working with in the future. The more answers I can get to my questions the better informed I am.
I guess I don't understand this whole "we will fast track you" as a value proposition. The only efficiency gain("fast tracking") is gotten by the company looking to hire. I myself am still subject to the same length of the interview sequence. Only one is with Tripplebyte and one is with the company doing the hiring instead of two or more with the company doing the hiring. And in the process I have given up the opportunity to have more exposure to meet and talk to the actual team I would be working with.
Should I be so grateful for an opportunity to work for "Apple, Facebook, Dropbox, AND Stripe"(Tripplebyte seems to beat this drum loudly) that it doesn't matter whether I think it would be a fit for me on a personal, cultural and professional level?
How exactly do they save me time? Can you elaborate?
>"Beyond the force multiplier for pre-onsite interviews, they also can predict which companies you will have a higher success rate with for your on site."
What is the "force multiplier" here?
Again this is a job where you will spend many hours of your life, should the only concern be the one whose interview I will have the highest success rate with?
>"... but I think the value proposition is pretty obvious to most people."
Again what is that? It's not obvious to me. I am asking sincerely.
And come to find out most of those 4 people you didn't have a chance to interact with during the interview process are completely toxic and unprofessional. You only find this out after you have accepted the job.
If you find yourself looking for a new job again in month then Tripplebyte hasn't really saved you any time have they? I am not sure where this idea comes form that just because the company is "Apple, Facebook, Dropbox and Stripe" does not automatically mean that everyone on every team is a great personally or one you would want to work with.
When I interview with a company and I don't think I am alone in this I am also interviewing the company. I am thinking "are these people I could work with?" The novelty of working on Big S.V. Company eventually wears off and if it's a bad fit for you on personality or culture then you are either going to be unhappy, looking for a new job or both. I and I imagine many others are OK with a slower process if it means being able to make a better informed decision.
So now I need to start from scratch to get all of the information I'd need to make the decision of what position I am interviewing for fits. What makes this doubly difficult is I've been "fast tracked" to the interview process where those discussions aren't expected.
The more I read about triplebyte the more I think their heart is in the right place but they are creating a market for lemons.
If triplebyte can create a system where the final interview is a cultural fit interview of no more than 2 hours and both sides feel they have enough information to proceed, then they are onto something.