Hacker News Reader

Comment by UncleOxidant | Hacker News Reader

> If someone has decent problem solving and analytical skills, can understand the problem domain and has the capacity to learn a new language/framework/construct in a short period of time (which frankly most of us can, and do with frightening regularity), unless you have something miraculously niche and technical, they're capable of doing the job.

Agreed. And this was how hiring was done up until about 15, 20 years ago. For example, if you knew C++ they figured you could pick up Java. Or if you knew Perl, you could be assumed to be able to pick up Ruby or Python. But in recent years that's not been the case - you mostly get screened out well prior to any human seeing your resume if you don't have all the right buzzwords. Hopefully the tightening job market with companies (supposedly) having trouble finding people will get us back to more sane hiring practices.

View on HN

> Agreed. And this was how hiring was done up until about 15, 20 years ago. For example, if you knew C++ they figured you could pick up Java. Or if you knew Perl, you could be assumed to be able to pick up Ruby or Python.

That's why FAANG still do whiteboard/algorithm questions.

If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good.

This is how I interview as well. Though I usually have a fairly good idea who I want based on my network before HR ever get involved.

> That's why FAANG still do whiteboard/algorithm questions.

> If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good.

I see the idea, and I try to focus interviews on 'show, don't tell', but is there research supporting better outcomes?

> is there research supporting better outcomes?

Sadly it's all empirical.

Since when is research not considered empirical?

That's too bad. I was hoping for conjecture.

I see it as placement of the gatekeeping filter.

Do you trust HR or the hiring team more to filter candidates?

It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team.

I essentially hired one guy I interviewed because he seemed intelligent and did motorcycle work on his own. Had some background in the specific subject, but I'd rather hire a demonstrated ability to learn & initiative. (Afaict, he's thriving and a great fit for the position)

> I essentially hired one guy I interviewed because he seemed intelligent and did motorcycle work on his own. Had some background in the specific subject, but I'd rather hire a demonstrated ability to learn & initiative.

Me too, and I respond similarly to information like that. But the #1 hiring bias is hiring people like yourself. It's possibly I am just falling victim to that bias.

> It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team.

Keywords are almost always pointless. I've seen extraordinary resumes that ticked all the boxes, yet 20 minutes in there was not a working FizzBuzz on the door.

Problem is, as the hiring manager you're not going to see the resumes that didn't meet the keyword minimum. You're only seeing the resumes that made it through the filters.

Engineering managers should dictate the filter to HR, not the other way around. If it's the other way around, that's a big red flag.

I beg to differ on that. On my experience, both interviewing and being interviewed, capacity to learn and adapt to different languages and proven experience of having done that lifts the bar significally and accounts for most of the tecnical requirements, the rest being just practical knowledge or solid fundamentals.

For sure there will be places on which the person weeding out resumes might miss that a competent programmer on most interpreted languages can jump between them and get up to speed pretty quick. Such places I would avoid anyway. At least on my echo chamber, I thought these were on the minority nowadays?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com