Ask HN: What I have to do get a job? Tech Recruiters?

Welcome to the interview process - not every employers does it, but coding evaluations are common. Also: grow up or cut the arrogance, nobody's impressed with the attitude but you.

Yeah I'm that good. :)

Maybe you like wasting time on mindless projects, or tech recruiter? It might benefit to polish up on your economics, specifically supply and demand.

Last week alone in Denver: -15 Dev jobs at Pacific Metrics -20 Dev jobs at Health Grades -A Mapquest recruiter I don't know begging for referals. -New Tech (Denver) 15 minutes of job announcements.

You might think I have an attitude or arrogant, (oh well) what you can't deny is I now the market.

I think a coding evaluation that requires an unreasonable amount of time to complete is inappropriate. So if that's the case, your premise is fine. However, burning bridges is a poor strategy and what I can't deny is that you acted with an attitude and were arrogant.

Yes, I enjoy wasting time on mindless projects because I retired at 31...and was a tech recruiter. I would be happy to teach you a few things in professionalism, economics, all of the above :)

Sorry, I'm a retired Marine, I just cut to the chase, it did wonders for my military / civilian career.

Congratulations on your retirement at 31 as tech recruiter, you surely are one in a million!

Like I said burning bridges with recruiters that have a shelf life 7 1/2 months, I'm okay with. I am more than comfortable that in your tenure as a recruiter you sucked in your pride to get that fat commission check.

As for your offer to teach, I am okay thanks, I don't need to downgrade my knowledge.

Cheers.

There are a handful of recruiters that I refuse to deal with at all. I set my cell phone to block their number and set my gmail to automatically archive their emails.

Actually, I have a simple solution now, that works surprisingly well. When someone contacts me, I search my gmail for past interactions. That's saved me from wasting time on several occasions.

I like that approach, fair and efficient!

You have to understand there are a lot of jobs, but there are a small amount of jobs you actually want.

Quality programming jobs with great co-workers, management, environment, stacks, etc, etc, are rare.

People talk and nobody wants to work with the smarmy arrogant guys that seem to be everywhere these days.

Coding evaluations are one thing, but this seems a bit overboard. Did you actually read the spec? If I was going to do this properly, it would probably take me a full day. Perhaps even a couple of days. Is it worth that amount of time?

The other question in my mind is whether the company is actually going to use this code for free.

Actually, that smelled like a project the company needed done, disguised as an interview test.

Thanks for pointing that out. You're right - a coding evaluation that takes a reasonably skilled programmer more than a few hours to complete is inappropriate. And a company actually using that code, that's just wrong.

You didn't have to be all wordy and cocky with your refusal.

Just be like "hey this seems fun but I just don't have the time for the challenge".

How many years of experience do you have?

To quote their Director of Development: “I know this isn't an easy challenge, but senior-level work is a lofty claim. Nailing this challenge is a pretty quick ticket to landing this job.” You don't consider that cocky? As for wordy, well I just like to be creative while clearly explaining my point.

+5 years of experience

I have to agree. Most companies expect some kind of coding challenge now to weed out those who lie on their resume.

The recruiter will likely just forward your entire response to the company and honestly, it sounds a little pompous.

I've been on the hiring team for a couple of companies and if I saw that kind of response it would be an instant turn off because I think it shows someone who is difficult to work with.

However, if you simply just said "sorry, I don't have time for this right now I'm interviewing with 5 different companies alongside my day job" you can bet that would get a more favorable response. I know cases where someone's resume looked good enough to allow them to skip that part and just come in for the in-person interview. In fact, I've used this very line myself to avoid doing coding challenges that would have taken too long.

They're just trying to move the cost of identifying talent from their bank account to yours. You can do the reverse.

Find someone in the company (preferably someone you know). Ask him if he wants a recruitment bonus from his firm. Then send him your resume. He gets money for sending an email on your behalf, and you don't have to take these silly tests. MBAs and HR folk don't have to jump through all of these hoops to get hired. Why should programmers?

This is at best unethical and at worst against the contract that the company signed with the recruiter.

I once had someone offer this to me at an interview, and it completely sunk their chances.

This kind of evaluation is much more likely to find qualified people than the standard programming trivia questions interview process. They made a couple of mistakes that make it likely that very qualified people will skip it, though.

1. They should set up a virtual machine with the framework installed and a skeleton project working with dead-simple instructions to run it

2. They should time-box it. Meaning -- you tell me when you can do it -- I send you the instructions beforehand and then you have 2 hours. I tell you my expectations -- not beautiful code, but an indication that you understand the spec and see what you can do in a few hours.

3. They seem to want you to geocode the address -- they should provide a dummy function or service to do that (or give some indication of what they expect here)

4. The only semi-challenging part of this is the hierarchical algorithm they want to see you code (common ancestor). The rest is just boiler-plate. Perhaps just cut to the chase (give you the rest of the code -- and just leave this function blank and have you code it).

That definitely was too much, just for an interview. A couple times, I had someone ask for a consulting project as a coding test, like the guy who asked for a program that connected to Interactive Brokers and executed VWAP trades. That test project was too specific and detailed.

My rule now is that if the pre-interview coding test takes more than 15 minutes, I just pass.

A lengthy pre-interview coding test has many issues:

- you could do it and not get an interview

- you could do it, and they turn out to be douchebags (likely, because they're insulting your time with the test)

I just pass on almost all pre-interview tests now. How do you know it's worth your time until you meet them?

VWAP isn't a common term around most programmers. (Don't worry, I know all to well what it means.)

Is there a site the specializes in programming/trading/finance? or do you have to be in NYC or Chicago?

Most of the banking/trading jobs are in the big cities. It's mostly NYC and Chicago, but a little for other cities. (with Chicago being more options and futures)

Like you mentioned elsewhere, it sucks as you might imagine. Why would a big bank need good software when they can get trillions of dollars in bailout money from the government? (and the losses by Knight are still a rounding error compared to the government subsidies the financial industry receives) For example, 0% interest rates are a massive wealth transfer to the financial industry, because they can borrow at 0%, buy stuff, wait for inflation, and profit (and get bailed out when they're wrong).

Financial software is shockingly low quality.

Like most things, you need previous financial/trading experience. I haven't done it in a couple of years, so I wouldn't be seriously considered now.

Yeap, that is our financial system in a nut shell... Thanks Grandma Yellen for continuing to bail out the banks.

Working with an external recruiter who I assume charges a contingency fee of 25% of your first year salary is really important, actually, and may be undermining your relations with these companies. If they hire someone who costs $200K/year, they pay the recruiter $50K. Just to get someone to sign and stay for a month. Since hiring someone is so costly to them, they must be extremely certain that it's worth it. So by choosing to work through a recruiter, you are, in a sense, inviting some of these demands on yourself. There are lots of other ways to find work and be found by potential employers.

To your first question: Obviously you don't have to complete this to get a job. You didn't, and so you probably will not get the job.

To your second question: I find this particular challenge to be unreasonable. I have provided coding challenges many times for people who are interviewing for companies I work for or own. Sometimes they are "very large project" type challenges. But I always stipulate in writing and over the phone that "we would like you to time box your efforts to 30 - 60 minutes total. Focus on some aspect of the project you would like us to see. We don't mind if you only write a single function. We want to understand your methods and thought processes, that is all." I find this works exceptionally well. Unfortunately, a number of technical companies really get this interviewing thing wrong.

Now for some friendly advice, which, of course, you can take or leave. You must be looking for a job or at least you are attempting to have a relationship with this recruiter, because it seems you have spoken to companies that this recruiter has found for you. It is good to not burn bridges with recruiters. You just burned a bridge.

You need to realize that the recruiter is never going to pass your message along to the client. The recruiter is right now crafting a message to the client saying "Chad really doesn't have time to complete the challenge because he has a few other offers on the table. Would you like to give him an offer? Of course if you don't, I have 30 other engineers for you to look at who would love to complete the challenge and will be a great fit for your company!" Yes it is a blatant lie, and your recruiter may make up an entirely difference excuse for why you won't do it. But the client will certainly never receive your message. Never.

In the future when a job comes up which fits your skill set and price range, do you think this recruiter is going to think of you first? Not a chance. "Chad looks like a perfect fit for this. But, what if they give him a code challenge? That's a lot of hassle to have to save face with the client. Hmmm Susan and Johnny are both pretty good fits as well, I'll send them."

Your point is good but your presentation is the problem. Maybe you could have tried:

"I am super busy right now, I just can't complete such a large challenge with my family life and work schedule. Please let your client know I am so sorry and I don't want to cause them trouble, I just can't complete it at the moment."

This would have been a great way to get out of it that would have left the recruiting thinking of you in the future. Alternatively you could have tried something like:

"Wow! I really like this client and I would love to work with them. It sounds like the Director really wants to find the right candidate. However, I am a bit concerned. This is not just a lofty challenge but a time consuming one, especially with family, kids, and work. I estimate this would take me 8 hours to complete. Maybe I am way off though. I would love to show them my abilities, but would they object to me time boxing this to 1-2 hours? How can we work together to make this happen?"

Your milage my vary of course, but don't burn too many recruitment bridges, or you might find you have no way to cross over to the other side.

Oddly enough I agree with most of what you are saying. The fact of the matter is I don't need a job that bad that I needed to conduct this challenge. In addition, I sometimes I like to do a little creative writing...

I'm okay with burning bridges, honestly people should probably do it a little more instead of using double speak. Although I do try to be nice to recruiters, I know this one specifically is just shuffling resumes. (He past on my resume with out even really looking at it, I know because I always ask a few questions, to see if they made to the bottom of the page.)

Burned bridges will always be rebuilt when money is involved.

Disagree. Reputations travel far and last a long time. 2008-2009 was part of a cycle that will come around again.

There are plenty of companies that are unwilling to deal with the friction of "rockstar" developers.

Disagree to disagree. I explained politely why I wasn't interested. I work in Denver and have the ability to work remote which only expands mt reach. (plus I have other clients on the side.) The recruiter will forgive me, if he wants to make his numbers and a commission.

But you are right 2008, will happen again in some form... (US oil, banks?)

I'm the internal recruiter at FutureAdvisor, an online investment manager backed by Sequoia and YC. As a recruiter who doesn't code, I expect this comment will provoke a disproportionate amount of disagreement from the software engineers reading this thread. But I hope I can tell you why recruiters and hiring managers act the way they do, so that you can handle them better and understand their constraints.

I've written about this a lot elsewhere: https://medium.com/terms-conditions

The message you sent to the recruiter and the hiring manager at Company X was: "I don't want to work for Company X."

Hiring someone is kind of like getting married -- an employment agreement is a long-term commitment to mutual dependence as you work toward a common goal, and it involves a large share of your hours every day.

You want to marry someone who's nice to be around, who can hold up their end of the deal, and who shows clear signs of wanting to marry you in return. That desire is expressed through the effort they put into your relationship, especially in the beginning.

Both you and the company face the same challenge: gathering reliable information about someone you don't know. The only information the company cares about is a) can you do the job? and b) are you easy to get along with? By refusing to take the coding challenge, you gave them no answer to a) and a clear signal that the answer to b) is "no."

I'm not saying you should waste a lot of time taking hourslong coding challenges for companies that you don't want to work for. But if you do really want to work somewhere, you need to find a way to show them that you can do the work and that you won't be a wrench in the gears.

You could have tried to meet them halfway. Get some projects you're proud of up on Github that you can point them toward. Let them know that you'd be happy to do some live coding during a technical interview so they can hear you think out loud as you solve problems. That's one way to minimize the time and effort you expend, and still give them information they need.

They're not going to pay you to get that information, but like you, they should be willing to spend some time, in a process of escalating commitment, to make sure you can do what you say.

What a lot of good software engineers don't realize is that there are a lot of bad software engineers out there. The job market is full of noise. People lie about their skills and experience. So employers need to be able to test those claims, and they do it with coding challenges.

I have to respectfully disagree with @taprun. The fact that coding challenges can be applied to the job market for software engineers makes it much less corrupt, and raises the quality of matches between employers and employees.

MBAs and HR people are not in a position to show what they make. This leads to a lot of bad decisions. That said, there is still a screening process. A good company does a ton of reference checks, and watches them closely to see if they deliver on the job. If they don't, they're usually gone in a few months.

@vonnik I didn't argue that coding challenges were bad. I'm arguing that it's improper for businesses to offload their hiring costs onto programmers. Any business can offer a hiring challenge, but it should be prepared to pay programmers to take them.

As you say, hiring someone is like getting married. So too is getting hired by someone. If I asked you (the recruiter) to write a 1,000 word essay (tailored to each applicant) on why you'd be a great employer, would you do it? Please be honest. I suspect that you'd suddenly see that your time has significant value.

@taprun - I understand your point. There are ways to offload hiring costs, and there are ways to share them. Should we pay software engineers to spend one hour on the phone for a technical interview? Should they pay us? The answer to both questions is "no." We both give an equal amount of unpaid time to the process to show our commitment to moving it forward.

Obviously marriages are reciprocal. If a company does not treat you well in the application process, that's probably a signal that it's not a good place to work. That company does not understand how to attract talent.

FutureAdvisor does not ask most software engineering candidates to complete coding challenges (when we do, it is to give someone a chance to prove their capabilities when they have fallen down elsewhere, like a makeup test). We do ask to see evidence of their work elsewhere, both on Github and in live interviews. Only performance correlates with performance. There's no way around that.

In my work as a recruiter, I spend a tremendous amount of time writing emails to candidates we really want to hire. That work, like a coding challenge, is all on spec, and it often doesn't pan out. I often feel as though I've wasted my time. It's difficult to escape the strange dynamics of the job market, where goods are not substitutable, and the buyer and the seller have many idiosyncratic properties and needs that can only be communicated through ad hoc efforts like coding challenges and emails to individuals.

it's called "opportunity cost"; most ppl wouldn't mind when the opportunity is good enough. will Chad finish a coding test if Apple/Google asks? i doubt anybody would refuse knowing it might lead to a $200k+/yr job.

But every lame startup acts like they're Google/Apple/Facebook. If you're a no-name startup, why should I spend 2-40 hours for the privilege of maybe meeting you?

You shouldn't. One partial solution to the inefficiency of the job market would be a standardized and centralized coding challenge that software engineers could take once and show to many potential employers. In fact, several startups are trying to create something like that. HackerRank is one example. TrueAbility is another, specific for DevOps. These are both great ideas because employers get the information they need and engineers don't have to waste time on repeated challenges. In the end, though, it's just a prelude to showing what you can do in person, since every online test will be hacked.

Maybe everyone could go somewhere, study and be tested for a couple years, so they are certified as having basic competence?

I have a CS degree with multiple honors fron a top 10 university. What was the point of that? Can't I skip the "prove you have basic competence" pre-interview screening?

With luck, the CS degree gave you the skills to perform on the job. Unfortunately, many CS degrees do not guarantee basic competence. The problems of industry are different from the problems of academia. Things like academic pedigree and GPA don't correlate with performance on the job. This is a truth many companies learn painfully.

lame firms will figure it out after being turned down several times, and eventually change the procedure. but hot firms can do whatever they want bcoz there r way more candidates than vacancies. that's what we call a "free market".

There are way more candidates than vacancies for some firms. But there is way more work to do than competent individuals to do it. So companies will always be chasing the top talent. It's kind of a love triangle.

yeah right i wanted to chase Kristen Stewart so bad, but why was i only able to date friends of my friends? so sad...

Actually, she wanted to date you, but when you asked her to write a 1000 word essay on why she would be a great girlfriend, she decided to forget it.

Recruiting should be about incremental escalations of commitment, where a positive result at each stage leads to more and more information exchanged. Big upfront applications are a mistake.

No, I'm not interested.

$200K != happiness

I'm working on an index to the "Careers" section of tech employer websites at:

http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/

I take requests; if there is a specific city where you would like to work, please let me know.

This is built manually. I have some ideas as to how to automate this, but the manual work yields insight into how to better automate it.