Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashelmire | Hacker News Reader

What's with the standard of doing a full day interview? Who does this work for other than fresh graduates? I don't want to spend a whole day (which I have to request off from my current employer) answering probably-silly technical puzzles as the first round interview (the 25 minute phone call doesn't really count since it sounds like just a pitch).

Does a full day of whiteboarding really get you better candidates than say, a single hour technical interview or 1 or 2 hour homework? I'd rather do half a dozen video chat interviews spread out over a month than give a whole day just for the possibility of a new job. I'd prefer a single technical interview or homework over that by a mile.

If you tell me your interview process is a 25 minute call followed by a whole day of technical interviews, I'll tell you to take a hike.

View on HN

A full day interview is standard. You grant that it's standard, right in the first sentence of your post. But you'll tell anyone who offers you a standard interview to take a hike?

This is symptomatic of a broader problem with HN comment threads on "how to interview" articles: for any given approach to interviewing, the top comment will be a middle-brow dismissal saying, "I would never interview at a place that interviewed that way." For all X.

I would never interview at a place that does whiteboarding. I would never interview at a place that gave me a take-home assignment. I would never interview at a place that asked me to pair-program on a real assignment during the interview (I should get paid for that). I would never interview at a place that asked me to work as contract-to-hire. I would never interview at a place that used HackerRank. I would never interview at a place that looks at Github profiles. I would never interview with a recruiting firm. I would never interview if contacted by a recruiter (instead of the hiring manager).

And apparently some people would refuse to interview at a place that asked you to talk to half a dozen of your potential teammates before offering you the job.

There's just no good approach.

They're asking why it's the standard and how we could change it.

It's the standard because it's a big world and some candidates travel long for an interview. So you squash the process into a day. That makes sense.

Could you elaborate on why it makes sense to have these candidates travel long distances for a full day interview, rather than have them travel nowhere for a shorter interview via video chat?

You can verify their ID. You can show them around the office. You won't discriminate against dial-up modem users. You get the candidate to show that they are serious (flights, hotel, etc.) and you show them that you are serious by paying for it.

Video conference software always stinks for whatever reason.

You could always conduct half of those interviews by video and do the rest on-site.

It's simple, do a quick interview and hire. Use experience, some technical questions or white boarding. That's how it was done previous to this decade.

A full day interview is standard. You grant that it's standard, right in the first sentence of your post. But you'll tell anyone who offers you a standard interview to take a hike?

A full day interview (and reasonable) is standard if a company seriously exploring a candidate. A full day interview before a company is seriously exploring a candidate is also standard but it's a standard for the seriously broken and abusive interview process of many organizations today.

The strong reaction people to several of the processes you name comes when those are the first filter a candidate encounters, a qualified person invests a lot of time in them, and then discovers the organization simply wasn't serious to begin with. and they've essentially cheat the person out of significant time. All this gets worse if you encounter many companies doing this in a single job search.

>There's just no good approach.

There's no silver bullet, that's why companies should offer alternative recruitment paths. Some prefer a take-home assignment, some a face-to-face interview etc.

I have never had a full day interview, if it's more than 4 hours for a serious onsite I won't waste my time. They clearly don't appreciate other people's time and are quite frankly wasting theirs. The decision was probably already made before the second cup of coffee anyways.

I absolutely agree with refusing to interview and meet the teammates. All you have to do is rub someone the wrong way for whatever reason, hell they could be in a bad mood because they got cut off on the freeway. Meeting tons of people before an offer is an excellent way to reject great candidates.

I had a company want to do a full day interview, but I had to cut it short and beg off at 1 PM, because they had already blasted past my hotel check-out time, and were in danger of encroaching on the departure time of my return flight--that they booked for me. It was the worst interview experience I have ever had. They declined to arrange for a rental vehicle, so someone from the company had to drive me to and from the hotel, with airport ground transport handled by a shuttle van. Later, they ghosted me, and even tried to stick me with the hotel bill.

The one benefit was the lesson on how to recognize some early warning signs when interviewing.

To name and shame: Tyler Technologies, Eagle Division.

I will say that as someone generally on the hiring side of the equation, I do find that hotel chains and rental agencies drive me CRAZY.

No matter how hard I try and how many times I do it, there is ALWAYS some idiotic hiccup that prevents me from paying for the candidate's room, car, etc. up front. I can give those companies all the credit cards and forms in the world, and somebody in the pipeline will screw it up and demand a couple hundred dollar charge from my candidate. It's so bad that I normally show up to meet the candidate in person simply so that I can use my personal card to ride over the hiccup.

If somebody at HN is looking for a startup idea, here's a "grubby" thing that someone could turn into a service that could browbeat the idiotic hotel companies into submission on.

In this case, it was not the hotel that screwed up.

At the time, I was living in Madison, WI, and they booked my flight out of Milwaukee. With a connection in Madison. No, I couldn't just board the flight in Madison. No, they wouldn't pay for my mileage between Madison and Milwaukee, or for airport parking. The flight out of Milwaukee was cheaper, you see.

The service you are suggesting already exists. It is called a travel agency. Some even specialize in corporate travel. My spouse used to work for one. They lost a lot of business to self-booking sites like Travelocity and Expedia. As a result, some office peons in small and medium businesses are being tasked with booking travel sometimes, and they have no skill or training in handling the idiotic hiccups that will always happen when dealing with the airlines, hotel chains, and vehicle rental chains. Larger businesses tend to have their own travel agents, or contract to a travel agency, especially if their own employees need to travel frequently. If a company cannot provide you with an acceptable travel experience as a candidate, they won't do it as an employee, either.

To contrast, the next travel-required interview booked a reasonable flight, a full-sized rental car, a paid-for hotel, and sent me a per diem check without having to submit any expense receipts. The on-site interview was about 90 minutes, without whiteboarding or coding exercises or pop quizzes or brain teasers, and then they followed up on it and extended an offer. Which I accepted.

I should rephrase. I think a full-day interview for a startup is probably going to be a waste of time. After I've already passed a pair of phone interviews for a company with very high comp like Google, Apple, etc? I'd do a full day. For a startup? Meh.

As another poster mentioned, there is no silver bullet. Companies should be flexible and not feel bound to doing it exactly the same way that the big companies do (and even those could be more flexible, but who am I to tell them how to operate) - your startup does not offer the same things or have the same needs, you should not interview the same way. After all, we're expected to be flexible too (take time off work, do phone interviews, hour long onsite interviews, multiple interviews, homework, and/or day long onsites - apparently we're supposed to be happy to do any of those for multiple companies at a time!).

I like a full day interview because it allows me to get a good look at the office, the environment of people around it, and meet 4-5 prospective coworkers and get a fuller assessment.

However, the day is truly grueling. I interviewed @ Google Cambridge a few years ago (spoiler: did not get the job) and was exhausted by the end of the day I could barely think. My throat was parched from basically performing some sort of stream of consciousness dialogue so that my interviewers were able to assess my problem solving technique and going through corner cases. It's a marathon for sure..

Yep. I got recruited for a job I was qualified for yet didn't really want with a very high paying salary. I decided to go through the process to see if there might be something that made me change my mind. They requested a full-day interview. I asked if it could be broken up into two days and they declined. So I informed them that I didn't think I would be a good fit.

There's so much bullshit that Facebook / Google et. al are responsible for in this area. All of the wannabe startups basically copied their recruiting tactics with zero understanding for why good people were drawn to them in the first place.

The word "recruited" implies you got an offer and signed it - not that someone poked you on linkedin.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my working definition of "recruited" isn't as specific as yours. The GP's usage was reasonable to me.

Nothing wrong with spending all day interviewing if you think you have a strong chance of the interview resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in raise/bonus/etc.

Yeah, an actual full day of interviewing is probably more than necessary, but you need to have a strong signal of your ability. I think most technical recruiting at good companies is more about avoiding the possibility of hiring someone who is bad than trying to find the best candidate ever. The business doesn’t want to spend $50k+ on recruiting+paying someone who sucks. So spending a full day on interviewing, especially if you are offering competitive compensation, just makes sense

It's foolish because the process elimates the best candidates.

Yeah if you created a hugely popular and successful framework, or are a technical fellow at Google, you don’t even need an interview. But for slightly lower bars of “best” I think you would be surprised just at how bad many people even with decent credentials can be.

I just can’t envision a scenario where a company is one I’m interested in working in (good pay, good work, good culture) and where I’m not willing to try to work there due to a one day interview, no matter how good I am. I’m by no means “the best” but I would only go through the process of changing employers/possibly even moving if tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars were at stake, and a day is not much time to spend for that.

Let's assume I have to spend a day doing "something" at your company to prove I'm worthy of an offer of employment. What if instead of 6 randomly generated interviews left up to the whims of the interviewer it was 6 interviews working an a different aspect of a simple application? Time spent is the same but I think the latter would produce a much stronger signal.

Our full day interviews aren't so that you can do lot's of different tests, it's so that you can meet and discuss things with the entire team you're working with. It might seem silly that you're being asked a toy problem 4 different times, but each of those times you're talking to a different person and getting to know them.

Why would a serious candidate waste the entire day? The candidates that stay may be the disparate ones.

I consider myself a strong engineer and I've only ever done full day interviews, at least for companies bigger than 30 people. What am I doing wrong?

But they don't that's why they want reassurance full day interviews.

First step stop applying and let them come to you directly or get recommended.

Do you consider yourself the Brad Pit of enginners or joe blow? Do you think Brad Pitt goes into the cattle call auditions and waits all day for his 5 minute read?

I'm not a Brad Pitt, are you? Is there even such a thing in engineering?

There are tons of engineering rockstars (brad pitt types). Pick your favourite framework there are usually a handful of stars around it.

Am I Brad Pitt? I'm not in that league. But you don't have to be to avoid the unpaid nonsense of hanging around all day. If that's the hiring process it shows that the company is unsure of themselves and are afraid to make a mistake. Companies like google are so big they need this kind of process to filter people out. When a 30 person company does this it raises red flags.

Why? Hiring is the single most important thing a company does. It makes sense to invest resources in it. Every company that doesn't is gambling that every candidate that can get through a short interview is about equal.

Not hiring is a huge gamble as well. Waiting an extra few months can force other employees to quit if the workload is being put on there plate.

If you are asking too much of candidates many will dropout as they get hired somewhere elsewhere quickier. The longer you take the quality of the pool gets reduced.

Hiring is important. Keep employees are probaby more immportant. Sales are in my opinion the most important. Taking a gamble can lead to 10/10 candidate hire. Chances are low it will lead to a 1/10 candidate. The longer they play it safe the lower average peak in the candidate pool.

If the process takes 3 months you will be lucky to get a b level guy unless your company is special (google/apple/hot startup). The A level guys will move on.

Someone with three offers in hand will not waste an unpaid day unless you can offer something special.

I agree that keeping employees is important. Let's just expand the thesis to being "HR is the most important thing a company does".

> Sales are in my opinion the most important.

And how does a company get good salespeople? Hiring well.

Speed is a part of hiring well.

There is: Rob Pike, Jeff Dean, or John Carmack are examples. And I know that no matter how good I get, I'll still be a long way away from the level those guys have reached.

I also consider myself a strong engineer, and I have only ever done full-day interviews at Google and Amazon.

yeah only desperate engineers work at the top tier fintech companies with all day interviews

If you're a serious engineer that is demonstrating consideration: 1-2hr homework doesn't exist. Attention to detail, considering corner cases, test cases, documentation, and polishing takes time.

I do agree with you the whole "let's stress him out till he fails one of the tests and then fail him" gauntlet is just annoying.

It's an interrogation, plain and simple.

There's a contingent of very detail oriented people who believe they are introverts because they tire easily at this kind of persistent over-stimulation. These people will wash out of the process before the culture fit interview in the afternoon. All you've done is increased your odds of getting a bunch of coding cowboys.

The fact is that nobody in a real business situation should be put into this sort of pressure cooker situation on a regular basis. That you're selecting for this indicates a pretty gross failure of management to manage. And until people push back the problem won't get solved. Hiring more people that think that's okay? One way to look at it is that it's a public service you're doing for the rest of the industry by keeping people like that out of our hair. Except people do what they know and any junior folk will just think this is normal and okay. It's not okay and I wouldn't even say it's normal.

A pressure cooker interview tells me this place is high drama and they're looking for people with a high tolerance for bullshit. I want to get shit done and do it well (not perfect - well), and that's probably not happening at a place like this.

Keep in mind you are interviewing the potential employer, boss, supervisor, and potential fellow employees as much as they are interviewing you. I welcome any chance to meet (and evaluate) everyone I can on the other side -- are these people who are pleasant, smart, ambitious, have potential, I can help, can help me, etc.

I'm pretty sure it's an American thing. Where I'm from it's been a short 1 to 2 hour interviews spread across a week or two. Similar to what you're used to I'm sure.

The downside of the American model is that it's fatiguing having to audition for an entire day. On the plus side, once the day's up you usually know there and then whether you've got the job or not.

Agreed, I wouldn't consider doing a full day interview, unless I was looking to relocate and wanted to fit the whole process into a single day. As a regular job offer, it's absurd.

It selects for people who are comfortable attending an all day meeting.

As a potential interviewee, the specter of ever working at a place that tolerates all day meetings again sends chills up my spine.

Wow, well the feeling is mutual, I wouldn't want to hire you! :)

A day is nothing for someone looking to leave a current position. Take a day off of work, what's the problem? Seriously. You're leaving anyway.

And then it's not like you can't just walk out on the interview at any time (say after the 2nd silly whiteboarding session) if you feel they are wasting your time.

The most important part of interviewing is the candidate's evaluation of the company. More time spent, and more people to talk to, is a fine tradeoff for a day of your time.

As a candidate, I don't really care what the company thinks they are getting out of a full day interview. I want this for my own reasons.

Because it's not necessarily one day off work, it's one day off work for every potential job.

But that's only a downside for people who might fail your interview and/or be looking for alternative employment. Why would you care about inconveniencing some disloyal guy who you don't want to hire? ;)

Really? Interviewing for a job is being "disloyal"?

Pfft. Loyalty is overrated. The company will fire you without a care in the world even if you are the most loyal person out there

Most developers won't just apply and interview at a single job.

I usually interview with 3 or 4 companies when job hunting, and I would hate to have to spend a day at each.

I'll grant you that.

I filter companies at the phone screen. Do you always go for an in-person if invited? I don't. I make sure to take at 15min of phone screen time for my own questions. (I don't do tech phone screens with recruiters -- complete waste of time. Competent companies have a tech phone screen with an engineer, who you can ask questions of.)

And I don't parallelize my job search. I do them serially, in priority order (based on pre-interview assessment), waiting 2 weeks after interview for an offer.

I get it that most people spray and pray, but for well qualified people this is the wrong approach.

This is why companies get away with silly whiteboarding and take home exercises. As a candidate, you have to be more selective than that.

Also, given how searching for another job is not looked upon kindly by your current employer, having to hide multiple days' absences just leads to stress over losing your current income.

I have the luxury of not needing to spray and pray. Even though recently the number has been fairly low, the PHP-tagged jobs on the monthly Who's Hiring that are open to remote would net me at least 3 or 4 jobs that interest me.

Stack Overflow would add several more. From a list of ~10 I can trim it down to 2 or 3 "I want to work there" companies.

> I get it that most people spray and pray, but for well qualified people this is the wrong approach.

Now that I am in New York, I don't generally even need to apply. I just wait for the recruiters to hit me up. When I do apply, I almost always get a response. I can be as selective as I want.

When I lived in Dallas (with only two years less experience than I have now) I might as well have been invisible. I took every onsite I got because I got so few phone screens to begin with. I couldn't afford to be selective.

As an aside, for an industry that claims there is a critical talent shortage this one sure has a bad habit of ignoring talent that isn't already local.

> A day is nothing for someone looking to leave a current position. Take a day off of work, what's the problem? Seriously. You're leaving anyway.

Most people talk to more than one company if they're planning on leaving a job.

I'm not gonna sacrifice a whole day just to check whether the company's suitable.

> Take a day off of work, what's the problem?

The problem is that to get a good offer you need 2-3 competing offers. Assuming a 20% onsite success rate (from the article), thats 10-15 days... Most of us only get 10-15 PTO days a year, and wouldn't want to spend them in something harder than a regular day of work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com