Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Often there's also some IQ test and other nonsense stages

I actually support IQ tests and the likes, but it's the way that all these companies are doing this which sticks out. All of them somehow have their own flavor and keep the information to themselves (or to the company which they outsource their shenanigans to). It would be so much more efficient if we had an employee-centric approach where employees could provide access to this information, with verification, and it was up to the employee to give employers information on their current status and growth. You want the data? There you go, verified, now move on to stage 5 and no dawdling.

If you're going to toss out CVs, portfolios, certificates, diplomas, that's one thing (why again are we doing this?). If you're also going to give us all different kinds of "here's this whacky syntax no one uses" questions along with the umpteenth "IQ test" because god forbid we shorten the process, you're not suffering from a labor shortage. You're suffering from being a pretty princess too afraid to take a risk.



Pretend you’re hiring in this landscape. If people will submit to it, if it provides a more reliable signal of likely success than degrees or certifications do, and if you feel like it’s required to stay competitive, why wouldn’t you?

(To be clear: I don’t condone the practice at all, but I at least can understand possible rationales)


>If people will submit to it, if it provides a more reliable signal of likely success than degrees or certifications do

I agree with the general premise (this wouldn't happen if people finally stood up against it), but this has yet to be proven. Hiring absolutely isn't grounded in reality as much as it likes to think it is, even if the arguments sound rational beyond surface level.

Additionally I feel most companies severely underestimate the costs of this entire circus, and overestimate the risks and cost of bad hires. But that's not something I can back up with numbers.


> if it provides a more reliable signal of likely success than degrees or certifications do

Does it though? Has anyone done any form of analysis to show it works? I know my boss a few years back asked about asking technical questions and HR said we had to run a real scientific experiment to prove it works, basically a round of technical interviews, but the technical interviewers write down a score but are not invited to the actual decision process, then after 6 months we open the score and see if it correlates at all to on the job performance. When we interview there is a set of questions we are allowed to ask/score on (HR says they have run the data to prove those results make a difference)

Most companies could get just as good results if they put all resumes in a box and do a random drawing to figure out who to hire.


In my experience, just having a degree at all (in CS, Eng, IT/MIS, but even math, music, languages) isn’t a terribly strong predictor within the field. It’s mostly used, by those who do, again ime, to filter out against lack of commitment/perseverance/grit.

Personally I feel I get much more signal talking to people about their particular passions, accomplishments, struggles, and ideas.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: