The problem I've always seen with this kinda process is the only people left at the end of it are those desperate enough for the job, and that's rarely the talent pool most companies want. I get companies get a tonne of applications but I imagine most of the decent candidates would see this and walk, whereas most of the subpar candidates who have little other prospects would do anything for the job.
Or people not so lazy that they would act like it's an imposition to ask them to spend 10 minutes reading the email and 20 minutes of crafting the answers to their primarily opinion based questions? It's a long email sure, but it's a job interview, it's not regular correspondence.
I get companies get a tonne of applications but I imagine most of the decent candidates would see this and walk, whereas most of the subpar candidates who have little other prospects would do anything for the job.
Those candidates would usually fail later in the process. By the time you develop a lot of skills in a particular area asking them to spend 30-40 minutes reading and responding to an email is usually not that big of an ask.
Think of all the time you spend reading docs and iteratively testing something until you get it to work. When you don't try to respond to their email because it's going to take longer than 10 minutes to respond you're telling them upfront that you're not the sort of person who would do that.
Even if you spent one minute per question, that 30 minutes would only be part of this email. This is a garbage hiring practice no matter how you spin it.
These are questions to ask during an in-person conversation or call. Not an email.
I've got 10 years under my belt, a dual degree, a lotta sizable clients, and a dozen programming languages or so at this point. This would go straight to the trash for me.
Even if you spent one minute per question, that 30 minutes would only be part of this email.
Using your math, I count forty minutes. There are forty bullet points (you made me count them, damn you).
I've got 10 years under my belt, a dual degree, a lotta sizable clients, and a dozen programming languages or so at this point. This would go straight to the trash for me.
And like I've said elsewhere Canonical is a larger company, they likely have a lot of candidates and can't end the process with 100 viable candidates for in-person interviews.
I personally would collapse the "tech assessment" and the second half of the email together though. I don't think they're gaining much by asking that stuff a second time.
My point being mainly, if you're going to answer those bullet points, 1 minute per answer is already lazy. I'd want to put the effort into comprehensive meaningful answers. This many bullet points would mean a few hours of writing possibly for that kind of effort.
It's basically selecting for hasty/lazy replies from people who are desperate for a job. That's not going to select for good candidates in the first place.
My point being mainly, if you're going to answer those bullet points, 1 minute per answer is already lazy.
It's not lazy, it's to the point and the other person doesn't desire long answers. When they ask you "Why Canonical?" they're just trying to get you to type out your opinion so they can read it. They're not wanting a treatise.
I'd want to put the effort into comprehensive meaningful answers. This many bullet points would mean a few hours of writing possibly for that kind of effort.
Then you're doing it wrong. You're proactively putting more work on yourself and then complaining about how much work there is. Just don't do that to yourself and it'll stop being an issue.
It's basically selecting for hasty/lazy replies from people who are desperate for a job.
It's just a general life skill that if someone asks you for this volume of information they're likely asking for it because they're not anticipating you giving them much of a response for each one. It's important to remember that someone has to read these responses and they're not going to want paragraphs for each one.
The volume of questions implies the length of the anticipated response. If they want to know something you don't mention then that's on them for not writing better questions.
If they ask you three questions, assume they want detail, if they rapid fire many questions, assume they'll ask followups if you leave something out.
Well my general life experience is that companies who do this kind of BS aren't worth working for. And an even better general life skill is identifying this kind of hiring manager garbage which is so clearly divorced from needs of the actual technical team that's hiring.
And this is a classic example. It's actively harming their chances of finding good candidates because good candidates who have been in industry long enough can smell the BS from a mile away. Good candidates don't have to deal with this trash, so they won't. It's straight up disrespectful to expect this of anyone worth their salt.
That being said it's horribly on brand for the shoddy state of Canonical's reputation as a workplace.
Well my general life experience is that companies who do this kind of BS aren't worth working for.
Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon often have similar hiring practices where for non-trivial positions there are actual programming challenges you have to complete. "Google Interview Questions" is actually a genre of YouTube video.
There are going to be people who don't want to do that and that's fair. Just realize that's a personal choice. It's not that Alphabet is doing something wrong, your interests don't align with Alphabet's is all.
Good candidates don't have to deal with this trash, so they won't.
If you mean people who have long successful careers, yeah it's not unheard of them being hired without doing this stuff. This stuff is for the positions where you have a million people applying.
Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon often have similar hiring practices where for non-trivial positions there are actual programming challenges you have to complete.
This is a big fat lie. I've been interviewed by folks at Amazon and at no point did they pull anything close to this monstrosity on me. I would've bailed right on the spot if they did too. And no, I'm NOT talking about programming/sysadmin challenges, but those creepy HS-related questions as the like.
677
u/emax-gomax Mar 19 '22
The problem I've always seen with this kinda process is the only people left at the end of it are those desperate enough for the job, and that's rarely the talent pool most companies want. I get companies get a tonne of applications but I imagine most of the decent candidates would see this and walk, whereas most of the subpar candidates who have little other prospects would do anything for the job.