Comment by abyssknight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by abyssknight | Hacker News Reader

"Similarly, I'll be more likely to say "hire" to the Eagle Scout, triathlete developer than a candidate who bludgeons me with all of their "accomplishments"."

That line struck me as a bit off base. My father works at a corporation where they were looking at hiring a security engineer. His boss wanted to hire a guy who had leadership qualities, and one candidate was on a basketball team that went to nationals. His boss was excited, and really wanted to hire this guy. The other candidate was fresh out of college, had a security background, skills and passion. The candidate wasn't nearly as well received, but he did end up getting the job.

Would you have hired the basketball player? I'm curious, not flaming. I legitimately want to know why accomplishments in the field are less important then those outside. I mainly want to know because my resume is chock full of things I've done in the field. If I need to change that, I definitely want to know ahead of time.

I for one could potentially list my BSA rank and efforts, but I'm not sure what business value that has.

So listing field-relelvant "accomplishments" is bad form at Fog Creek? Ahem. Good to know, I suppose.

Actually, it would be good if every company just listed this sort of "how we hire" on their web site, so that you can steer clear of the ones you find absurd.

If they are "accomplishments", as opposed to accomplishments, yeah, leave them off the resume.

It's probably my fault for the wording, but you're completely misreading that. All I'm saying is that someone with a personality has a better chance, all else equal. Without a cover letter, I can't know that.

Ok, that makes more sense.

That probably could have been phrased better. Of course accomplishments in the field are important. What I mean is that if I'm kind of on the fence about a candidate, I'm more likely to say 'hire' if they show me who they are.

... if they show you who they are and you like them. I noticed from the hiring process where I work that hiring decisions are often based on personal chemistry, sometimes without regard to qualifications. Or more precisely, qualifications are sometimes used to rationalize a hiring decision that has already been made on the basis of personal chemistry. And I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing -- I'm more likely to be productive if I like my coworkers.

Not only is it not a bad I thing, I think it should consciously be part of the process. You should explicitly ask yourself, "Do I want to work with this person every day?"

When someone in my research group went to interview at a national lab, a young professor in my department made a similar point to him. He said they're already impressed with your research - that's why they're flying you out to do go through the interview process in the first place. What they're evaluating now is you - do they want to work with you every day for the next ten years?

That makes complete sense. Thanks for the clarity. I really do appreciate your candid response to both my comment and the others above & below. Knowing what someone is passionate about, and how they might fit into your company is something that I can definitely understand and value.

"Would you have hired the basketball player?"

Hiring athletes is a lot like hiring programmers. There are certain positive qualities that athletics can promote, as well as certain beneficial skills and worldviews one can acquire. But this doesn't guarantee that the person in question has any of those. Most don't.

Placing people with these qualities, skills, and worldviews in the right positions can be a huge boon for any organization. But first you need to know which positions are well suited for athletes, and you need to know what things to look for.

You make it sound like athletes are only athletes. I am a hacker, researcher and an athlete - none are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply they were mutually exclusive in any way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com