Hacker News Reader

Comment by polalavik | Hacker News Reader

I’ve had the same experience. For every job I’ve landed (all of 2 spanning 8+ years) I spent 6+ months applying to hundreds and hundreds jobs and failing interviews until I landed something. It’s certainly not the optimal way to be getting jobs - most people network better, I imagine. But if you are not good at networking it’s a long process.

I sometimes think companies spend too much time assessing candidates. I just spent months interviewing with a two companies. Each company had me doing a hour zoom call nearly every week with someone new until eventually rejecting me. I’d reckon if the person seems reasonably competent in the first 1-2 interviews, has work artifacts in the public domain (academic papers, patents, etc),and has a background closely aligning with the posting then just taking the risk is probably a better use of everyone’s time. Truly wild out there trying to convince people you know something.

View on HN

I agree with you. I was rejected from a company in January after spending upwards of 40 hours on the process. 9-10 on the actual interview, talking to people, Zoom calls that blew through the scheduled times, and the rest on their code challenge/assessment. I could feel my motivation and even desire for the job tanking dramatically by the end of my 3rd 3-hour-long zoom call with their team. I didn't even want to do the code challenge at that point.

On the flip side, the jobs I've held where the interview process is more centered around my past work, discussions about approach to teamwork & software development, and extracurriculars/interests have never failed to lead to something more enjoyable and long-term. The fastest way, in my experience, to destroy a candidate's interest in your company is to demoralize and dehumanize them by dragging out the process for weeks (I am "still waiting" to hear back on a job I applied for in December... if they end up getting back to me at this point, I just can't see myself wanting to continue the conversation.)

You cannot let companies get away with this. Its bad for everyone trying to get a job in the field, and it makes you look desperate.

I'm not sure what field you're in but if you're reasonably competent, being transparent and honest with what gaps there are in your knowledge can be an attractive trait for a candidate. Someone who's forthcoming about things they're unsure about is someone you can train faster because they recognize that they don't know everything...and that trait keeps them open to learning and open to better solutions too. Sometimes people want to hear that you struggle with the same things.

All of this probably goes out the window in hyper-competitive fields but in my field for example (software engineering) where there's a labor shortage, I've found this to be the case anywhere outside of the companies that just want to test how well you remember your Computer Science degree.

This seems like the norm in the US, whereas it was quite easy to get a job with a company in a more lax jurisdiction. I wonder to what degree it correlates with employee protections (if there is a strong correlation, one would expect French companies to have the most demanding interviews, since it is almost impossible to fire someone).

The interviews are harder or more abstract and longer in California. It feels like no one is sure why they are hiring so they prolong the hiring process as a safeguard.

It's a great way not to attract talent.

> It's a great way not to attract talent.

Yet, California has had plenty of people moving in to the state from elsewhere, enough to cause an acute housing problem in some areas. Something feels off in your analysis.

Speaking from someone not in California but who has remotely interviewed with companies across the globe.

No one does 4, 5, 6 interviews if they know what they want and are worried about losing them. No one is worried because the candidate pool is so large and the position doesn't really need to be filled.

> one would expect French companies to have the most demanding interviews, since it is almost impossible to fire someone).

In my experience, it's not that hard. You have up to six months to fire the new hire for whatever reason you like. They can also leave during this time, of course, but people have a tendency not to.

Certainly despite the hate for PIP, I quite like the Amazon way. Make it easier to get a job then cut quite a few people in their first year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com