Hacker News Reader

Comment by erikw | Hacker News Reader

Something I'd like to see massive companies do to is offer lower skilled internships. I had a tough time convincing anyone to hire me coming out of a bootcamp, and I saw a lot of other people in similar situations- even people who I know are much better developers than I am. Internships also tend to require someone to be enrolled in an accredited institution. Offering a simple coding test and a small stipend seems like it would be pretty low risk for a company that has the cash and manpower to run a program like this. Large companies seen uniquely positioned to be able to try something of this size.

View on HN

There should be a medical residency-style job matching algorithm. Most jobs are way more fungible across companies than corporations would like to think. If a graduate would be almost equally ecstatic to work as an SE-1 at Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, etc...why should they have to apply to each one independently? Of course, the applicant would rank them by preference. If none of them want the applicant, he/she would "drop" to less sought after firms.

Companies on the platform would agree on certain tests the applicant would need to take, and at which institution. They would also agree on the information they all want (in a common app). Interviews would play little to no role in the process, since only technical interviews offer any marginal value according to emprical evidence. If social skills are important, they can be included in an empirically proven test of social skills. Imagine a VR simulation where you are grouped with other applicants, and ML algos are fed dozens of inputs based on your interactions in the simulated environment. Human testmasters can still have input into the process, delivering guided exercises, looking out for algo-hacking, interacting with test-takers, and weeding out anomalies.

From my experience with friends going through the residency match, more people end up unhappy or mediocre about their match rather than happy. I say this as the partner of someone who matched at their number one choice. The day was defined for me by how I felt for all of our friends who didn't end up at their number one (or 2nd-5th choice) and ended up feeling somewhat broken.

I can't assess that analogy without knowing what your friends were dissatisfied with. Was it because they ended up in a different state away from their family? Was it because their coworkers were worse than they expected? Etc...some problems will always exist, regardless of the matching modality. Additionally, people always want more. They often think they can get better when they get exactly what they deserve, along reasonably objective measures of assessment. Lastly, there is selection bias in who you hear from. All the residency announcements I see on Facebook are wildly happy, with exclamation marks and all. I won't conclude from that that everyone is happy with their match, just like I don't believe the reverse.

Increasing matching efficiency reduces transaction costs. Those costs are huge, and they lower our quality of life and the dynamism of our economy.

Our financial markets are very liquid most of the time. An underappreciated fact is that the aforementioned liquidity increases investment and keeps America on top of the world. Our labor markets aren't nearly as liquid. That is why there is a disconnect between how well corporations are doing and how well employees are doing. Both people and corporations would be better off if our labor markets were more liquid. We currently don't have the tools to make that happen. However, they are easy to create. They just need widespread buy-in and agreement on the core problem of inefficient matching in the labor markets.

Think of all the people who would have benefited from internships they never got and better jobs that they never applied for. If they got those internships and got those jobs, not only would they benefit, the whole country would benefit. It is in our collective interest to 1. keep people employed 2. at the best job at the best company 3. that is equal in quality to the person's qualifications. You can bring up the fuzziness and subjectiveness of qualifications and job quality, but let's be real. We all know who from our graduating class can get a job at an SP500 company and who can get a job at a Russell 2000 company. Both would benefit from a common app-style job application for different reasons. Let's stop pretending otherwise, because that hinders innovation and keeps us in the unsatisfactory status quo.

All of the residency announcements I saw on Facebook were also wildly happy, but I know for a fact that some of the people who posted those were literally in tears before that and put themselves together to post a "happy" announcement. Personally, I like the idea of having the option to choose whether or not to accept an offer.

I'm not so sold on the idea that a match system will improve labor liquidity. How do you negotiate wages? Medical residents are stuck with the salary of the site that they matched at. When you enter the match, you cannot simply choose not to accept the job "offer" you are given.

I just don't think the cost/benefit is there. These people would take more training (more time of "more skilled" engineers"). They already have way too many competent applicants for the "more skilled" internships.

Internships are more about fostering talent than making money off of intern labor. It makes sense to have something at the start of the talent pipe as well as towards the end of it.

AWS does have lower skilled internships; at least certain populations. At least in Premium Support. For example, AWS has a program while they'll take military vets and teach them the tech to work in Premium Support.

And then once you have your foot in the door at Amazon, there's a host of programs that will teach you to code and become an SDE. I even knew a guy who worked in a warehouse that was using internal programs to become an SDE.

> Something I'd like to see massive companies do too is offer lower skilled internships.

or how about train? companies are part of the problem they complain about. companies do not value onboarding or training their own workforce. training smart people on the job is the best way to ensure success for both the company and the individual.

if these companies are so advanced and full of smart people and apparently think they know something about education, you think hiring would be much easier if they adjusted their hiring instead of looking for people that are carbon copies of themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com