Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

129 pointsby forloopabout 10 years ago

10 comments

drblastabout 10 years ago

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist.How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview.Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead.

评论 #9552484 未加载

评论 #9552961 未加载

评论 #9552941 未加载

评论 #9552423 未加载

评论 #9553777 未加载

评论 #9554348 未加载

评论 #9553294 未加载

评论 #9552415 未加载

评论 #9553625 未加载

评论 #9552793 未加载

评论 #9555170 未加载

评论 #9552509 未加载

评论 #9554153 未加载

评论 #9552699 未加载

iamthepiemanabout 10 years ago

I don't understand the author's problem with "look good on paper" This is paper that the applicant has full control over. The applicant can put whatever they want on their resume and cover letter. Sure this is a writing challenge that doesn't correlate directly with engineering ability but being able to communicate the value of your ideas and explain technical ideas and methods to people with different backgrounds and skill levels seems like something that's just as necessary as engineering ability.It's always been my mantra that if you can't explain something to someone with no background in it then you don't truly understand what you're trying to explain.

评论 #9552389 未加载

评论 #9552386 未加载

MCRedabout 10 years ago

Here's what I've learned from 20+ years of hiring people:1. Make all the resumes that come in responding to technical jobs go straight to your inbox. If your company has a candidate tracking system then set up an alias that sends it to you and to the tracking system.2. Review every resume yourself. Jump in and ask follow up questions for candidates that are interesting.3. Interview them yourself. Every one you bring in you should spend some time with.4. Have authority with the head of HR to make offers and move fast when you decide to hire people. If you leave this up to HR you will lose the best candidates.The simple fact of the matter is you can't outsource this to recruiters. Let HR people do their paper work and all that but do NOT allow them in the decision making loop.This article is right you can't train them to do your job, and my experience is that they are trained, basically, to be paper pushers and gate keepers.Not only do these people not know how to tell a good candidate from a bad one, they (with very few exceptions) don't even KNOW they don't know, and they think they are an important part of the process in screening people out! Look at their blog posts and linked in profiles. They're proud of this role because they think it makes them important and they think they know what they are doing. This is the worst kind of ignorance, those who think they know but don't.If I seem bitter it's because I've spent a lot of time dealing with HR people who are incompetent and who, basically, don't give a damn about the quality of hiring.So, I'd say the number one most important hire in the early years (but not the earliest years) is the head of HR.

评论 #9553991 未加载

评论 #9555016 未加载

ChuckMcMabout 10 years ago

This post is a bit self serving and this statement:"The sad truth is that if you don’t look great on paper and you’re applying to a startup that has a strong brand, unless you know someone in the company, the odds of you even getting an interview are very slim."Is, in my experience as someone doing the hiring at a number of 'name brand' companies, completely false.That said, I've heard it used by recruiter after recruiter trying to play on the fears of an insecure engineer in order to get them to commit to approaching companies only through the recruiter. The motive here is that the recruiter wants to get up to 30% of your first year's salary for introducing you to a company, if you approach the company directly, well then the recruiter gets zip.I strongly believe that it is this self interest which drives this silly (and bogus) narrative that if you don't come from the "best schools" or have the "best pedigree" you won't even get looked at by the "hot" start ups or companies.That said, just mailing your resume to the 'jobs@...' address and hoping for the best is not a good strategy either. The key to getting an interview is that the hiring manager has to think you have a shot at being hired into the job, and for that to be true they have to believe that you have the skills to do the job, and would be able to work well with the existing team.The easiest way for that communication to happen is to have someone that knows you and knows the manager make that connection. The next easiest way is to participate in activities that people who do that kind of job participate in. I know people who have been located in World of Warcraft guild chat, at maker spaces, and at conferences. Here is a clue, hiring managers go to subject matter conferences to meet people who might have the skills to to fill the positions they are looking for. It is efficient, you meet a lot of people quickly, and it is "safe" (you don't have to set expectations you just start talking). Another great source of recommendations? Professors. People who have seen you working on problems, ideally in small teams, and coming up with solutions.

verteuabout 10 years ago

The article is true -- large companies often hire through non-technical recruiters, who aren't qualified to judge applicants.But I find it disingenuous to single out tech, which is one of the most meritocratic industries. What does the screening process look like in finance? Academia? Journalism? Real estate?

评论 #9552407 未加载

评论 #9552391 未加载

bsdpythonabout 10 years ago

I've got a crazy idea: we should start evaluating recruiters. I once had a very experienced recruiter get upset and pushy when I told her I was a bad fit for a job and I didn't want to apply. After some back and forth I realized that the source of confusion was that she didn't understand the difference between Java and JavaScript. Weeding out incompetent recruiters would help the whole process.

评论 #9552918 未加载

kqr2about 10 years ago

For reference, this post and discussion started in the thread about getting a thorough CS background online and its employability aspects:<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9551239" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9551239</a>In particular:<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9551911" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9551911</a>

31reasonsabout 10 years ago

Recently I was interviewed by a well-known dating company. After the onsite interview they rejected me by saying "Our team liked you very much but they have decided to go with the candidate that they worked with in the past".Is this right ?

评论 #9553120 未加载

jjthebluntabout 10 years ago

People are hired by merits defined by the hiring manager, not a globally consistent set of merits. It's a very well written article.

评论 #9552320 未加载

graycatabout 10 years ago

Lesson: Be on the hiring side of the table. That is, be an entrepreneur.As someone with some high value, tough to get paid that value as an employee; that's a very old lesson.E.g., I've been programming for decades and am doing so now in my startup, but my programming background doesn't meet the criteria in the job ads. So, I have little or no experience with Python, Java, JavaScript, C++, Linux, Unix, Haskell, Scheme, Lisp, C#, functional programming, etc.Instead for my platform I selected Windows instead of Linux. On Windows I selected Visual Basic .NET (VB) instead of C#. Why? Because for my work both VB and C# are essentially equivalent ways to build on the common language runtime (CLR) and .NET Framework, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, SQL Server, etc. And for my work, C# and VB differ mostly just in the flavor of syntactic sugar.I prefer the flavor of VB because: C# borrows much of the deliberately "idiosyncratic" syntax of C. Sure, way back in the DEC PDP-8 with 8 KB of main memory, some of the sparse C syntax may have seemed good to have. While there are still some good uses for C, now for my work C is like digging a Panama Canal with a teaspoon and VB and C# are far ahead. No C for me, thank you. Much the same for C++ (e.g., tough to avoid memory leaks -- tough to be really clear on just what the heck Stroustrup wrote).So, I like the more verbose, traditional (Algol, Fortran, PL/I, Pascal, etc.) syntax of VB instead of the more sparse, idiosyncratic syntax of C#.So, to me, VB is easier to write and read and, when I start to hire, teach and learn. So, it's VB.The .NET Framework? It's a major hunk of software, one of the most important in computing. Microsoft is solidly behind it, and they have several tens of billions of dollars in cash to back what they want. Microsoft has long seen their business as that of supplying a platform for others to build on, and their .NET Framework is one of their most important planks in their platform.For my work, .NET has a class for nearly everything of any general purpose utility. So, often my code becomes mostly just mortar to join .NET bricks.For more, ASP.NET has a way to write Web pages, and so far it seems mostly from okay up to fine with me.ADO.NET has a way to get to relational data base and, again, seems mostly from okay up to fine with me.For Python, maybe I will use it for some of its good packages, if doing so becomes worthwhile for my work.For Java, don't need it. If I had already used it, then I wouldn't use it now and would forget it.For JavaScript, so far for my Web pages ASP.NET has written a little JavaScript for me, but I have yet to write a single line. If I need it, then I will use it -- so far I don't need it.For Lisp, too many parentheses, and I'd have no idea how to get to the .NET Framework.For algorithms and data structures, been there, done that, learned it, used it, taught it in college and graduate school, done original work in it.For the engineering, I've got a Ph.D. in engineering from a world famous research university. Some of that background is crucial for my startup. It appears that the jobs with the job ads would make no use of that background -- a big advantage for my startup. Besides, nearly no one hiring would be able to evaluate my Ph.D. work. And nearly anyone hiring would be afraid to have a Ph.D. subordinate.So, the job ads and I agree to disagree: They don't want me, and I don't want them.If my startup works and I need to hire for software development, then I will. Main qualifications: (A) Some okay basic computer usage and familiarity and interest. (B) Good at reading and writing technical material. (C) A good record in a college STEM major. (D) Otherwise looks like potentially a good employee. Having programmed a little would be a plus. That's what I'll hire for. It's not so strange: It's how I got hired in a Watson lab AI group, and they hired for the right stuff.The job ads for software developers are sick-o. That others are making such mistakes is good for my startup.

评论 #9552877 未加载

评论 #9554828 未加载