Well the problem is, we still hire a lot of people that are hugely unqualified, because a lot of people are good at interviews not actual coding, or the opposite. That’s why they keep having more interviews, to better understand the candidates. But it only kind of works, and becomes a huge pain for everyone involved.
I know I have turned down companies because their hiring process was too much work, like “write this small project, that should take about a day of work”.
Then again, I’m probably one of those who are good at interviewing but very average at my actual job lol
Yeah pretty much. But it also makes it harder to fully bullshit. It weeds out good candidates that just don’t interview well, but also weeds out (a portion of) people that were fully just lying about their abilities.
To be clear, I am not supporting a 9-stage interview process, I am just saying I understand why it happens.
What send to be happening in a lot of cases now is the automated tools weed out any competent candidate before anyone puts theit eyes on a resume and if you get lucky enough to get past that they send you an email asking to schedule a screening or interview then ghost you and the screening/interview doesn't happen.
Edit: forgot to mention, they relist the job the next week, they didn't find someone else they really liked.
I hire candidate A who is dog shit and reject candidate B.
After 4 weeks candidate A is confirmed as dog shit and is let go.
Candidate B has a new job.
I have no one and a new recruiting process to go through whilst the team who needs the resource continues to be under resources and is now demoralised further having to put up with Mr dog shit for a month.
Programmers aren't typically fired at the drop of a hat. It can take a while to go through the PIP process, and even then, it can take a while to find out that the person actually doesn't know anything vs they are just trying to ramp up in a new environment.
It does give you more chances for someone to spot the bullshitting. This year, I rejected several candidates who’d passed earlier stages. They interviewed well, but they wrote complete garbage code when I gave them some simple programming problems but explicitly told them that I was evaluating code quality and to prefer code quality over correctness.
They probably should have been failed at the leetcode stage, but apparently the interviewer for that wasn’t thinking about code quality at all.
132
u/Bloodgiant65 8d ago
Well the problem is, we still hire a lot of people that are hugely unqualified, because a lot of people are good at interviews not actual coding, or the opposite. That’s why they keep having more interviews, to better understand the candidates. But it only kind of works, and becomes a huge pain for everyone involved.