Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsxwolf | Hacker News Reader

It is so simple. There's no "Experienced software architect with a proven track record of delivering high quality and performant blah blah blah" shit.

What were the interviews like back then?

View on HN

It's my understanding that the interviews consisted solely of a firm handshake

And a drink.

The interview that resulted in my first real job as a programmer was in 1976. In that interview I was asked quite detailed questions about writing an interrupt handler and the rest of a device driver. Despite having a new MS in Computer Science, it was a stressful interview. However, I did get hired and actually did do a project that involved writing the drivers for a new piece of hardware.

> "Experienced software architect with a proven track record of delivering high quality and performant blah blah blah"

What's wrong with that? Each part of the phrase sounds like something an experienced developer should strive for, and is objectively testable (e.g. delivered projects in a work setting or not, well-written code or not, the software runs quickly or not, etc.).

Junior developers in particular may lack the track record part when starting out, so it's a good indicator that a person is applying for more senior positions.

The problem is it's already given by the extensive job history. Typing that is just a dance we have to do to get past automated filters that look for keywords. By my estimation we are now in the "black hat SEO" phase of resume design. Soon, not even that will work.

Back in OP's Dad's day actual humans who actually cared looked at every resume and more often than not treated the interviewee like a human. For us, we just get fed into a machine and if we make it out of it maybe a human will glance at it.

I started doing my MSc in large part to get past automated filters in the aftermath of the dot-com bust. The irony is that I could have left it at that: Just adding "Studying towards an MSc in ..." got me a marked uptick in responses, and recruiters asking about it.

This may not be an accurate worldview of mine, but I've actually completely given up trying to apply to jobs that have application portals/likely keyword filters (though I may be willing to if I search for public sector work in the future).

I try to find work through past coworkers and often by reaching out directly to the hiring manager if I think I could have skills that they are looking for. My friend of mine who took the standard volume approach got over a hundred rejections before receiving one offer, often with radio silence. The human approach is nice because it bypasses the filters, and you're far more likely to at least get responses along the way during the job search.

Well, I don't think there's necessarily anything "wrong" with it (It's actually from my own resume), I just cringe when I read it. It reminds me that I operate within a world obsessed with jargon and eye-roll inducing business speak. It all feels so unnatural to me.

When I see things like that on a resume I instinctively smell bullshit. Right or wrong, that's my reaction. "Proven?" Show me the proof. "High-quality and performant?" I better not be able to quickly and easily find end users complaining about your companies software.

There's so much suspicion in this industry. Is it so in other industries? We see a 20 year work history, and we assume you must be lying so we LeetCode you in front of a couple recent college grads. And now we're going to go after end user complaints as well?

I guess its good I work on the back end, I can always blame poor user experience on the front end and "UX" people.

I'm suspicious of people that need to dress up their 20 years of experience with business speak, yes. It is the business speak specifically that makes me suspicious.

Everyone does this because everyone thinks they need to. So you're suspicious of everyone, but the only thing you can legitimately suspect is that they're the kind of person that does what needs to be done.

> What's wrong with that?

You said it yourself: "Each part of the phrase sounds like something an experienced developer should strive for". Nobody will ever write the opposite. So it signals nothing.

But as I also wrote, at least one occurrence of this in a resume is still a good signal that the candidate understands what a hiring manager is looking for, and also signals that the candidate isn't totally junior.

If a candidate is totally junior and still writes that they are are a junior an "experienced software architect with a proven track record of delivering high quality and performant..." but fails to back it up, they end up being judged next to people who actually do have this experience.

In that case, it could be better to emphasize the "willing to learn quickly"/"excellent team member"/soft skills aspect to set expectations right, and/or develop better technical skills so a candidate can actually claim that. So, it's only really beneficial to write if you actually do have experience, and thus could be a worthwhile signal to include at least once in the resume to show you're at that level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com