Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakeinspace | Hacker News Reader

This is like It Gets Better, but for fragile software engineers who obviously are talented enough to make 6 figures some place else. I understand rejection can feel personal, especially when so much of your life and identity comes from the work you've put into mastering some field, but this doesn't seem like the healthiest mindset. I'm just leaving college now and don't have much of a perspective yet, but the application/rejection treadmill feels a lot like a continuation of academic external validation. Just substitute Google and Facebook for Harvard and Stanford.

View on HN

Yeah, I like the idea of this site but was disappointed to find most of the entries being something like

I was rejected by Fashionable BigCo X and Y but then eventually got a job at Fashionable BigCo Z

Which is great, it really is, but not really all that interesting (sorry!). You've only been rejected in a very narrow sense. Everyone has an off day, or off interviews. You were actually accepted by the mainstream, eventually. It's like saying you were only accepted to 2 of the 5 world class universities you applied to. In what sense have you suffered rejection?

I was hoping for more of this variety:

I was rejected by Fashionable BigCo X and Y and Z. That path was obviously not going to work out for me. But I at least knew my own value. So, undeterred, I instead did awesome thing #

There are a couple like that. That's interesting. Someone who holds their confidence and actually outperforms others' expectations, despite lacking conventional sources of validation.

Vital meta lesson from this:

I was rejected by Fashionable BigCo X and Y but then eventually got a job at Fashionable BigCo Z

When we see that repeated for many successful people, I hope the takeaway becomes: your interview process is probably not doing what you think it is. In some cases this extends to the entire work culture. E.g. workplaces that situate themselves in a mindset equivalent to "we must hire the best unicorns to possibly succeed". Other, better ones instead try to embody "we will continually improve our hires. we will help make them great. (oh, there are no unicorns.)"

Any hiring process will result in some good employees being rejected and bad employees being accepted. If your candidate pool is very large compared to the open positions, as is the case for the Fashionable BigCos, it makes sense to "tighten the mesh" in order to avoid the false positives better.

Do you suggest always hiring the first person that applies? There has to be some choosing function.

No. But I think many of our filters are bogus. Some of these are easy: "Did you complete a traditional four-year CS degree at <highly respected university>?" should be considered downright obscene as a front-line filtering function. It robs your team of great talent, and destroys any attempt to hire diverse candidates. And by "diverse" I mean invaluable team members who will bring fresh perspective to your problems, your understanding of your users, and more. There have always been many "alternative" paths into computing, now moreso than ever.

A concrete example: A place I interviewed in my last search uses pair programming extensively in their day-to-day (and have lovely twinned monitor/keyboard hardware setups to support this!) They use that in their tech interviews as well. You and a candidate sit and talk about code. It's a lovely experience, and far more grounded in the work than just about any whiteboard interview.

Pair-programming isn't the takeaway here. It's that this org built an interview model which was virtually identical to their actual working model.

I agree 100%. I myself don’t have a CS degree. I thought though with your emphasis on training great employees rather than finding them you were talking about hiring people that maybe aren’t the great programmers. It’s hard enough to design a selection process for exactly what you are looking for (i.e. programming ability), I have no idea how one would go about identifying candidates with great potential that can’t already program.

Well ... doing a little mental statistics it looks to me like you should just apply to Twitter in the first place if you never want to get rejected during your job search.

The abundance of Twitter picking people up after rejections is really odd to say the least.

It's not a random selection of stories, it's a list compiled by someone who used to work at Twitter, and presumably hit up friends and colleagues for stories.

In general, best not to draw inferences from data that wasn't randomly selected.

Agreed ... I purposely called it "mental statistics" to indicate that there was no math involved, too small a sample size and no controls against bias.

I don't think the point is to be "interesting", just motivating to someone who just got rejected themselves.

Here's one for you:

I was rejected by a startup for being a "big picture thinker" and not a "builder" after flying to big city for a full day of interviewing. Shortly after that I started a business helping local people align their business operations with technology.

I like the variety in hats I wear now and it has open doors for roles that aren't just engineering and more oriented towards my strengths.

> I understand rejection can feel personal, especially when so much of your life and identity comes from the work you've put into mastering some field, but this doesn't seem like the healthiest mindset.

I read it completely differently, like "See this has happened to us all at some point; it's not personal."

I can provide some insight on this.

For me, as an older programmer, it's not about 'self-worth'. It's about sunk cost, it's about our ability to provide for our families, it's about what we are doing with our lives when we have much fewer days ahead of us than behind us.

What do I tell my kids or wife? I can't get hired because I didn't memorize enough JS functions, or the right one, or didn't grab onto the right tech stack?

This isn't about a theoretical emotional idea: it's about survival today, into old age that is coming up on me quick, about providing for families.

Since I was an intern in college, I have seen older technical folks become harder and harder to employ. I've had good friends lose their job and because they're older/more expensive, they get rejected with all sorts of creative excuses.

Well, guess what? Now I'm older and I'm more expensive. Thankfully I saw it coming, and I have been saving diligently along the way. I'm not rich, but my lifestyle costs are not insane and I can continue to save from now until the gravy train pulls into station.

At that point, god willing and the creek don't rise, I can afford to work part-time, or take a big pay cut, or switch to consulting gigs.

You become more expensive and you also typically get more specialized in the things that make you expensive. Even if you keep skills up in a variety of areas, you typically major on certain topics where you're really valued.

There are a huge number of random things I could have been slotted into right out of school and I'd have done a good job. Today, my skills and compensation are much more specific.

Exactly this. As becoming older you also get experience, experience very few have. I was at one meeting with several people from a company that hired me as external contractor and several people from their client company. And an issue arrived at the table, a technical issue none of their staffers or client's staffer could explain/solve (both technical and non-technical people were at that meeting). So they asked me to weight in my input. After a round of questions from my side I told the most technical people there I thought he could understand, to do XYZ. He did it and just like that the problem went away. XYZ was a very weird combination that none fully understood how that could be the solution. When they asked me how did I know that I said only one word "experience". That's what you pick up over the years, the truest form of knowledge, the one that makes you to be more expensive. Because just like that particular problem where they wasted at least 100 hours of different people trying to solve it and in itself the problem also made their process more expensive, having a person that can solve this type of problems is the make or break of a company.

The flip side is that, if expertise in XYZ is no longer valued, that can be an issue. I've known people who were essentially the world experts in some narrow area of technology or business and that became irrelevant which was a tough situation to be in.

It's easy to say that people should keep skills up-to-date but if you're truly a world-class expert in X, it's hard to transfer that level of skill to Y. That's a different level from junior competency in one language picking up another language.

I know someone at a largely military sub talking about bringing in "geezers" to consult on some very specific classes of problems.

You misunderstood me. In my example XYZ was a combination of specific Windows API's to be called, not a technology. For the foreseeable future Windows is here to stay, and regardless of the programming language used if you learn its API's you'll be king.

Definitely this. I was not prepared for the sheer amount of time it would take for my most recent job search. Getting interviews was dead easy, and I passed 95% of my phone screens. Onsites just kept going the wrong way for me. Every time I got that call (why do they insist on calling to deliver s rejection, anyway?), it felt like an expensive mistake.

Luckily, I ended up somewhere that I actually like and am making more money than at my previous gig, so it all worked out, but those months spending down savings started to wear on me.

> It's about sunk cost

Ugh, I don't even have a family and the amount of time spent on phone screenings, pairing sessions, whiteboarding, and take-home code challenges becomes staggering. What sucks is the more places you apply to, the more the inefficiency of proving that you can program rears its head. I'm not against these things per se, but even spending just a few weeks applying to companies and doing those things gets tiring and demoralizing. I can't even imagine what this will be like in 10+ years when I'm older and have people depending on me.

Is HN really to the point where we are upvoting posts dismissing real people feeling real feelings of inadequacy over some suggestion of “fragility”?

Everyone can feel bad. Just because someone could get a job somewhere else doesn’t mean rejection doesn’t sting. That’s like saying that a breakup shouldn’t hurt because you can just get another girlfriend.

But a web page that consisted of people saying "My partner dumped me, but now I'm dating someone much hotter" wouldn't be seen as particularly valuable. Not all diary entries should be public, even if the feelings expressed are "real."

"My partner dumped me, and I was miserable for a long time, but I managed to move on and now I'm in a happy relationship" is exactly the sort of advice you'd give someone who was struggling through a breakup.

Magnify the emotions involved and time scale by a couple orders of magnitude, and you're describing It Gets Better, an effective and beloved project.

Wouldn't it though?

You kind of described r/relationship_advice

Dismissiveness and indignation routinely get upvoted. It's so reliable a pattern that I think it's hard-wired in people. Part of the task of moderating HN is to find ways to moderate that.

So let's take it as an assumption that the people that this is for are "fragile software engineers." How would you address that fragility? Certainly, having monetary success does not necessarily address feelings of inadequacy. It's also very difficult to bootstrap oneself out of such feelings. One way to address it is to share and know that you're not alone. That's exactly what this attempts to do.

Simply dismissing these peoples' feelings because they are successful is not helpful. I do not like the trend of assuming people cannot have problems and are not worthy of help or compassion because they are privileged in some way.

I don't know if this really counts as a trend; I'd think the trope of "Person who has more than you complaining about how bad they have it and getting only resentment in return" is as old as civilization itself.

Yeah it feels like they want medals for getting rejected at companies that haven't even bothered to give me a callback.

We all get rejected from dozens of interviews. That's just life. Did anybody ever think it wasn't like this?

> We all get rejected from dozens of interviews.

Which we know because of what? Sites like this let people know exactly that!

> Did anybody ever think it wasn't like this?

The common narrative is that if you work hard your efforts will be recognized. I don't normally hear "after a lot of people utterly fail to recognize them" unless you're talking about fiction writing.

> it feels like they want medals for getting rejected at companies that haven't even bothered to give me a callback.

I'm not sure why you draw that conclusion. Many of the messages I see are along the lines of "don't give up" and an implied "you can be skilled/capable without them recognizing it". Why do you think this is self-promotional rather than inspirational?

You're right, of course - failing to have ability recognized is very normal. But we tell our young people a very different message, and this site seems to be correcting that a little bit.

> Which we know because of what?

Experience :-)

When I was a senior at university, my friends and I all had a wall at our apartments covered with our rejection letters. Back then (if they gave you the courtesy of a reply) they were sent on paper in the mail. So yes, it's always been that way.

I myself have been on interview committees and voted to reject candidates who got hired, and turned out to be good. Why did I want to reject them? Don't really know, just got a bad vibe in the interview more than anything. We didn't do much technical screening at that company. Decisions were mostly based on past experience and references, and whether you seemed reasonably intelligent and sociable in the interview. I think that we hired a real dud maybe once, so it seemed to work.

It seems to me anecdata suggest the average hiring process lets through only a few duds.

It often feels to me like people are using that as a justification of the quality of their hiring practice. What's interesting is hiring practices vary greatly across the board but mostly in aggregate seem to produce this "we only ever got a few duds" result.

My hypothesis has now shifted to "most people can do most jobs". Or to restate it "There are only a few duds. Period. And hiring processes produce mostly random results. That's why we see a few duds come through."

I did this when I was a math undergrad applying for grad school. I applied to 15 graduate programs and got into 10, and rejected by 5. The surprising pattern was that I got into a graduate program if and only if it wasn't in the Northeast; selectivity of the program didn't seem too relevant. After graduate school, for my first job I ended up being on the graduate admissions committee at the Harvard Mathematics department and got to see things from the other side, where you receive 400 incredible applications, and can say yes to less than 1% of them. In that setting exactly what you wrote "Decisions were mostly based on..." applied just the same.

Over the years I've known various undergrad admissions people at another Boston area school. At least the way they used to do things was to basically have a matrix with quantitive academics/test scores on one axis and a score for soft stuff on the other axes.

Admit the "no brainers" in the upper right. Reject the "no ways" in the lower left. Then take a harder look at those in the middle. But the reality is that you could probably take an arbitrary subset of the middle group and they'd probably do nearly as well/contribute as much/etc. as the final selection you sweated over.

I've also been on the selection committee for various conferences over the years and that also often ends up working the same way to a significant degree.

As a nice twist on the rejection postings, while in college I visited a friend at Yale. He and his roommates had hung all three of their Harvard acceptance letters next to each other on the wall.

Maybe it’s just the fact that it’s written out in text but this sounds insufferable, not “nice”.

Probably the most honest explanation of how companies actually hire I've seen.

It's stunning how much energy, ink and tongue movement is wasted trying to justify most decisions, in every aspect of life, when in practice they boil down to vibes.

I’m a hiring manager and I think it’s a complete roll of the dice sometimes.

There’s people who came off really well in the interview who turned out to be terrible hires. And equally there’s been people who seemed woefully inexperienced but I liked their honesty so took a gamble on them and they turned out to be some of my best hires.

Then there is everyone in between.

You have all of these processes in place to help your practical judgement but at the end of the day it’s really just a lot of luck because it’s trivially easy to game interviews and some really good engineers are often really bad at interviewing. So pulling those who interview well but are rubbish from those who don’t interview well but are brilliant is very difficult at times.

Heck in one interview I got nervous and started rambling on about FreeBSD instead of Linux. I was easily qualified enough for that job but that was a terrible interview on my part and I honestly wouldn’t have hired me.

So that's the issue - you're hiring someone and you have no idea which version of them showed up to the meeting, and which one will be coming to work every day.

It's almost like we're trying to solve a taylor series of work efficacy (of an individual on a given team) by capturing a very small number of data points in stressful situations (interviews) and doing a hell of a lot of extrapolation.

For large companies, I think the "justification" part is for documentation in case they get sued for discrimination, etc.

In the 90s we’d have a nice chat, review the resume, and then get “can you start Monday?” Now with twenty years experience it’s a twelve-hour marathon to prove I’m not a fraud, at every single lead. It’s just not scalable, when it takes dozens of leads to score an offer.

> We all get rejected from dozens of interviews. That's just life. Did anybody ever think it wasn't like this?

Based on how this industry carries on about "talent shortages" and "lack of good engineers", yeah.

That and the fact that you get no shortage of people essentially making the claim that, if you have a pulse in Silicon Valley, you can send out a few emails and have a new job paying $300K by the next Monday morning.

I have seen several ex-colleagues do that sort of thing with no or very few rejections in the process.

They had to interview and receive offers from several companies though. I imagine the number of people that can just "send out a few emails" to get that result is very limited.

Thing is: Majority of failed interviews can be probably traced back to a relatively small pool of mediocre engineers, who get rejected by dozens of companies, before they finaly land a job. And then they loose that job 3-12 months later, because they coulndn't keep up with their employer expectations. So, at least in theory, both "there's talent shortage" and "it is so hard to land a job" can be true at the same time, just for different groups of people.

On the other hand, if you ever have to set up a hiring process or run interviews, it's worth remembering that a bunch of qualified engineers get rejected for silly reasons like not using semicolons and not knowing jQuery off by heart.

> Did anybody ever think it wasn't like this?

Yes, that's who this is for.

Yes, that's life. So what wrong with trying to make life a little less bitter by reminding people that a rejection letter isn't the end of the world (which is what it can feel like)?

I mean...I know bunches of people for whom it isn't like this, so I'm not convinced it's not like this.

The point is that the hiring process -- especially in programming -- isn't some golden, concise, dependable standard. It's quite messy, chaotic, and practically completely worthless.

The best you can do is sort out the people you absolutely cannot use or don't want. The rest? The one's that you reject because of not matching some part of the interview process but largely are a good fit? They're probably fine, they're probably better than you think they are. In fact, statistically speaking it's probably better to have gambled on these people than the people you've hired and then had to fire.

We don't have the industry standards, the experience, the data, or the worker pool to fuss around with these ridiculous interview processes some companies employ. In fact these interview processes actively filter for people who are only willing to go through with the process, not necessarily the best talent.

If I am being honest, as an engineering manager, I really hate to have to fire people. I have done it a few times in my career and I still remember every 15 second block of time in each of the meetings.

So my hiring bar is pretty high now. I've had my current team all for 4 years and they are all still doing great.

When I was a younger developer, I did an interview for a contractor and while the candidate was okay, I wasn't convinced (basically he hadn't shown any reason NOT to hire him, but he hadn't put himself in the MUST HIRE category). In follow-up I told the person I was worried by their lack of experience but would move forward with an offer, but I wanted to let them know in advance that I'd quickly move to let them go if it wasn't working.

In my mind this was a great solution: we got to make the hire, he had a chance to prove himself, and we'd not get stuck with a bad match if he had flaws. By letting him know in advance I was ethically clear because he would enter into the situation with his eyes open. He turned it down and my boss was furious with me for saying all that.

Now, some 15 years later, I realize how terrible my view was and how many bullets I blindly dodged. My best managers have all bent over backwards to make a problematic hire work out. Seeing that has always served as a soothing presence on my own occasional anxiety. And in the many interviews I've conducted, people that fall in the "I don't see why NOT to hire them" have outnumbered the "We should totally hire them" about 4:1. Frankly, the interview process is inadequate to give you a good impression of working with someone and their strengths/weaknesses. Heck, I routinely discover new surprises about co-workers after working with them for years.

My past self had been pining for an easy way to fire someone in order to dodge responsibility for the hiring decision. Now I see the hiring decision as not "are they great?" but instead "will I be able to work something out if they aren't great?" because we can't dodge the responsibility nor can we actually reliably be correct in our evaluations.

Unfortunately, my current view doesn't seem to match current hiring practices, where they want everyone to hit the ground running and magically resolve problems that are generally caused by non-technical issues (low staffing, contradictory customer pressures, etc).

It's hard to gauge what "high" is in these contexts. I'm specifically deriding the multi-week, extremely specific but not relevant exercises some companies have as their interview process.

What does your interview process look like, if you care to share?

Have you been through a mandatory layoff yet? Imagine you have a great team and you still have to downsize.

Is facebook a good bar now? I was thinking facebook isn't so popular, you really want SpaceX or something "better" now. All you validation seekers have to move!

Despite their recent unpopularity, Facebook still has a high hiring bar and a talented software engineering workforce that will provide valuable career experience.

You have to wonder at what point an organization becomes so unpopular that it impacts someone's hiring prospects, even if they did a good job there.

"June 2015 - May 2017: Migrated database to new platform, and re-engineered web presence for diversified global social network, resulting in 450% increase in engagement, and 23% ROI. Site: racistbastards.com"

I had a friend who worked at Theranos who has trouble finding work because he was there for 3 years.

A software engineer?

a lawyer. (facepalm)

The best engineer I knew at my last gig (a unicorn company we all use daily) worked at the major adult entertainment company for many years haha. Dude was a total family man by the time I met him and the nicest sharpest tech lead.

Complicated question. Also depends on the role, how close you were to the “bad” part, how specialized and in demand the skill is, etc. Generally the USG was in the business of hanging nazis or at least imprisoning them at the time, but operation paperclip brought a bunch of great scientists, and much more secretively the same thing happened to the arguably-worse Japanese war criminals.

I’d probably be fine with the guy handling ddos mitigation and keeping the site up for some random offensive racist or kitten-murdering website if it is just a technical challenge. Although there is also the negative PR impact from having hired such a person, since some people, including potential customers, would be less tolerant.

Hard problem. Anonymity or pseudonymous markets is probably the solution here.

Uhhh why would you be ok with someone who chooses to use their labor to work for a racist/kitten murdering website because it’s a “technical challenge”? I’m sure keeping the Daily Stormer up and running is difficult, but anyone who helps them do it is a nazi who deserves whatever they get.

Because the problem is society seems to redraw it’s ethical boundaries every twenty years or so..

Yeah, twenty years ago it wasn't cool to work for nazis.

And it still isn't. Do you have a different example in mind?

Say that to all the cosmetics companies, ThyssenKrupp, IBM and so on

The pay for gambling apps (in Australia, where it's legal) tends to be higher for precisely that reason. They'll often hide behind an unrelated name and refer to their industry as "gaming", too.

From everything I've read SpaceX is a terrible place to work. Insane pressure, far too many hours, Elon Musk.

Facebook is known for over-paying, which alone accounts for its continuing popularity with engineers. I worked my ass off trying to get through the multi screen hiring process there and despite being ex-Google still fucked it up at the end. It didn’t help that I got concussion the day before the on-site and wasn’t 100%.

SpaceX isn’t prestigious compared to Facebook.

Work somewhere on something you would enjoy. Also build out your network.

Seriously though. The issue is tying your self-worth to getting accepted be facebook, apple, google, etc.

A healthy person, when rejected from a company, realizes that the company did not need their skills at this time. This says nothing about the quality of their skillset, just that it's unneeded. Sort of how, if Linus Torvalds himself showed up to a frontend development interview, he probably wouldn't get the job.

A 'healthy person', to use your term, after rejection would realize where her skills are lacking and work or study hard to improve her skills, not delude herself like you suggest.

That's only an appropriate reaction, if your skills are lacking. If your skills are not lacking, then they're likely unneeded by the people you applied to and you should find a better market fit.

The issue here is that you've made 'get this job and only this job' as your goal. That is an unrealistic goal, because it is unnecessarily tied up with a particular company. My goal when looking for work is to find an opportunity where my skills fit into someone else's need, and then milk the economic differential until such time as my skills are no longer needed, or I have a buyer somewhere else.

I suppose neither one is 'right' in the moral sense. But I think mine leads to greater happiness and satisfaction, so...

Don't you think that people usually apply for positions that match their skillset?

It'd be nice if we never felt negative feelings about these things, but feeling nothing in this situation is probably diagnostic of a psychiatric disorder.

If you're personally rejected by a group you wanted to join, you should probably feel bad.

I honestly don't see this as a "feel personal" but maybe speaks more to the randomness of hiring.

Totally agree. Technical hiring is already much more standardized than hiring in many other professions but essentially it still is predicting actual work performance based on a few short interviews. Even the best interview process still have false positive and false negative. Good companies are usually more tolerant of false negatives because the cost of wrong hires are high, but false negatives don’t matter as much.

Also companies often want very different things. Not only from the technical perspective, but most of them also care about cultural match, and culture can mean very different thing in different companies. So getting offers from one good company and rejected by another is completely normal.

Personally I think beyond "can communicate / not a jerk" culture has just been a placeholder for personal bias.

I think cultural fit is frequently used as a stand-in for bias, but there are other important cultural factors beyond just ability to communicate that can effect how well someone will do in a job.

Legitimate cultural fit things usually have to do with how teams divide responsibility, how they collaborate on work, and preferences in styles of communication. If you have a team that tends to assign some individual work and communicates through PRs, that's going to be a cultural shock (and maybe a bad fit) for someone who comes from an environment with regular pairing / pair switching / mobbing and more in-person discussion of specific code decisions.

In general, there's a balance between individual autonomy and team cohesion that I think can come down to cultural preferences, and it's good to find people who can fit well into a specific team's environment. As someone who highly values individual autonomy in things like tool and language choice, code style, etc. I've been put in teams that culturally were much more in favor of cohesion and I was deeply unhappy- and now I try to filter for that in all of my own interviews.

None of that should have to do with candidates liking the same movies or beer as the exiting team, or any other sort of bias inducing "cultural fit" questions, and too often they end up conflated, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to cultural fit.

I find some of those items strange strange such as "how teams divide responsibility, how they collaborate on work, and preferences in styles of communication"

That's just doing the job. If company does X, then I do X.

I know folks have strong opinions on it but I've found there are many ways to do various tasks and as long as everyone works together in an expected manner... it's my job to do it that way.

There could still be legit culture fit sessions, like Stripe has a high bar for friendliness, and Airbnb want people to love traveling and be adventurous.

Let me break it to you: This attitude exists everywhere. People compete to get into top companies, then compete for limited promotions to get into top positions, compete for the best spouses, etc.

Finding a spouse is not like applying for a job unless you are on the bachelor. You meet the person one on one and you don’t compete with anyone but your best self.

No one i ever dated with which I experienced some “competition” was a good match in the long run anyhow. YMMV I guess.

Competition for the best spouse sounds like some reality show. Let me break it to you: when company can afford it, they compete for the best talents.

Yeah, I don't think it's particularly healthy if you only place value on the anecdotes because of the Big Name Companies involved. My rejection/acceptance stories are all with no-name companies, and yet I've found the successes I'd hoped for.

However, I think there's some value to taken from it when thinking of it in terms of "hey, I got rejected for similar reasons, but that doesn't mean I can't bring value worth hiring me for."

s/fragile software engineers/human beings

I'm pretty proud of how I got rejected from Google, how I laid into several of their products as bad and slow and missing important features. Now that they've incorporated most of my feedback into those products I go around and brag about how mad everyone got when I dared to criticize the holy Google during the interview.

Never criticize the company or their products during the interview. Whatever company it is. Have some common sense.

It really depends on how you spun your criticism. If you just started spouting assertions as to why the product your interviewer worked on is irredeemably horrible, you're not going to get a job.

I don't see any harm in helping freshly-graduated nerds feel less anxious about their job prospects. I agree it's hardly a vital service, but not everything has to be.

The perspective is, rejection is fairly arbitrary.

exactly rejection is part of saleship if you are not selling than you have no rejection they go hand in hand

I on the other hand think being shown the randomness in hiring is beneficial.

This is sage insight i feel many think "well duh" but sometimes still forget.

You're correct, but I'm a bitch (maybe because of school, parents, life, idk) ... this was somewhat comforting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com