Hacker News Reader

Comment by cameronbrown | Hacker News Reader

The questions FAANG ask should not be the questions a startup asks... FAANG have to deal with measuring candidates at huge scale, and have literally too much talent coming through the door. A hiring decision in a startup can be a series of life or death decisions.

I think algorithms questions are an OK litmus test for being able to program, but it shouldn't be everything or even 1/4 of an interview at a small company.

View on HN

maybe startups should focus on filtering for any reasonably competent person who will actually stick around until the company succeeds or dies

The competence is their half and the only bit of filtering - them sticking around is "yours" (the start ups) as you set the environment, pay, and benefits.

I don't know how big the percentages are but a worker's decision to stick around is a function not only of environment, pay and benefits. It's also a function of the worker's level of interest in the company's subject domain, individual desire for continuity, risk aversion, etc.

> FAANG...have literally too much talent coming through the door

From first hand experience, I would strongly disagree...

I won't beat the dead horse of the sad state of tech interviews, but just wanted to point out that this statement does not align with my experience at all.

I'm more referring to quantity than quality. At that scale it's better to optimise for a lower false positive rate because your business isn't going to collapse if you miss a decent candidate.

It will negatively impact the business if the business can’t identify the best candidates. It can have a low false positive rate and still hire relatively mediocre engineers. Which is what I’ve seen happen over and over again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com