I failed three job applications, here's what I learned
alexewerlof.substack.com
alexewerlof.substack.com
So while failing "only" 3 job applications may seem comically low for many people, it's on par with my experience (should be mentioned that I, like the OP, am also from Scandinavia. Maybe a different culture from the US?).
2: The first job is by far the hardest. Everything else is peanuts comparatively (unless you're an outlier).
Clue is this piece:
>I can’t recall the reference but I read in a book that it’s 10x easier to find a job while you’re already employed. My experience complies. Don’t waste that multiplier.
When company A thinks someone is worthy of picking, companies B-F suddenly believe that individual is worthy of picking too. One door opens, suddenly they all open.
Combine both and it starts to make sense why application numbers are so ridiculously high.
/r/Overemployed is even stranger, that’s a level of gamification and min-maxing being applied to your career even us in tech find queasy.
The US has a really tight job market for Jr engineers - there's a massive supply of new grads, my Jr engineer job posting for a small company outside of a major city get hundreds of responses.
Even ignoring CS degrees most of the applicants are clearly unqualified and are just applying to every job they can. A very quick resume screen will filter our applicants down to a handful.
Hundreds of new grads for one job is getting close to 1% of all new CS grads in the US for a year. There must be something particularly attractive about it.
I don't know what to call this. Aggressive networking, maybe? First of all, three interviews is nothing, and secondly, the "lessons learned" are trivial to say the least:
1. If you're not X, don't apply for X positions.
2. Don't apply to jobs you don't want, and don't question the company's existence
3. Network
I'm sorry to say this but the one thing I get out of this post is that this person is bad at compromise, is rough around the edges and plays fast and loose. I can see why any of those things alone would be a red flag in an initial interview with someone you know almost nothing about.
That info should be public by design anyway.
What is obvious to me is that we play a game where there is a posted set of rules such as “Don’t talk shit about the companies that interview you and definitely don’t reveal what they told you in an interview.” We punish people for breaking these rules.
But also, insiders break these rules all the time, quietly, either in “whisper networks,” or on web sites launched by startups that give people a way to post what questions companies ask when hiring, what biases various interviewers have, and so forth.
What we’re punishing this person for when talking about their “oversharing” is not being enough of an insider to know the right way to play the hidden game.
I found it mildly interesting, and not very scandalous. I mean, sure, when we are interviewing/hiring people, I suspect almost all of us wish we could just keep everything off the record, but... would that really be a good thing for human civilization? I'm skeptical. Anyway, we can't.
Definitely, three interviews is nothing in the sense of "I interviewed at THREE COMPANIES and got ZERO JOBS!!" but it is (again, mildly) interesting in the sense of "I did some interviews and here's how the non-successful ones went."
Anyway, I suspect if we had (a lot) more of this kind of blog post, the net effect on the interviewing/hiring process would be positive... (?)
I think that sense is one thing that's bugging some people. Though you also get the vibe on here from some often enough that (at least until recently) if you walk off the job Friday and don't have four offers in hand in a week or two, there's something wrong with you.
Personally I could have done without naming people and companies. It's not like it's confidential in general but it doesn't really add anything and, personally, I wouldn't have done it.
But identifying individuals is... well, even though I don't actually think there is anything wrong with it, it's definitely not something you should expect to be consequence-free.
Even if the consequences are mainly just potential employers in the future googling you with kagi.com and being somewhat put off by the sense that hmm this person seems inclined to share too much
That's real, but if you don't care about that, then this kind of post is probably interesting and useful to those who aren't in a position to not care about that.
Is there a name for the bias when someone thinks what they know is common knowledge? I seem to run into that often here on HN.
“Before dismissing something as common knowledge or obvious, consider the vast disparities in education, experience, and cultural backgrounds of HN readers. What may be obvious or trivial to you may be revelatory to someone else.”
The lessons learned didn’t feel terribly interesting but they felt more like ‘this is what I learned’ than ‘here’s some advice for you’. Maybe the author is just blogging about their life.
But no: apparently "I've done hundreds of interviews in the past few years to hire the best talent". Feels a bit odd...
Also, don't forget your perspective. They think they are interviewing you, but the reality is that you are interviewing them.
Also, from the post "don't apply to a specialist position if you are a generalist" ... wth?! If they have a top down approach to how they perceive themselves and you, cut the cord and run away. Everyone has to start somewhere, and in tech, often specialization comes over time.
This is me. Exactly. That’s why I would never be able to work for FAANG.
I sincerely doubt FAANG has no use for regular web developers, or that web developers there need to know C++ internals of Node.
FTA: >They needed a JavaScript master AND C++ developer who could contribute to Node.js core on DataDog’s behalf. They needed a specialist. Alas, that wasn’t me. I had worked with frontend, backend, serverless, mobile, even graphic design and UX. But not exclusively with Node.js core
- around 15 potential companies I’m interested in working for (after spending some time on the internet)
- I apply to 10 or so
- 2 or so never answer
- I don’t pass the first call for 1 company
- 5 answer me
- I fail the tech interview with half of them
- I pass the whole interview with 2 or 3, from which I select 1
Is it legally enforceable to make you pay back those expanses if you're fired (at least without cause)?
If you owe any money would depend on the exact wording of whatever agreement was signed. It probably says "for any reason."
I've heard this from other people, too. Is talking the talk really this important to employers looking to hire staff engineers? And if it is, why?
I asked the question because it's not the first time I've heard something similar to "learn to talk like other staff engineers". I've heard it a few times, I've read/heard other people being told some variation of it, and it even shows up in the Staff Engineer book by Will Larson. I was hoping to get more insight from people either hiring Staff engineers or other Staff engineers themselves.
1. Spotify is a Swedish company with a strong brand identity. Conformity culture is a bit strong, so I can totally understand why they would want "someone like us" than someone who would ask the challenging questions. That's my take on that interaction but maybe I didn't write it well. I edited the article a bit.
2. Staff is a leadership position and like other leadership roles, the impact of your personal belief will not stay at the individual level but rather spread. A positive attitude pays dividents. In that particular example, I went in with negative prejudice. The right interaction would be to have an objective argument and share their view as someone who bought into it and is working at the company. The least they could do is to use that as an opportunity to set the record straight. At least that is what I do if a candidate asks the hard questions. I don't have to convince them, but I'll do my best to honestly answer it and quite frankly maybe I learn something about the company I'm presenting that I didn't know.