Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chime 5941 days ago
The system is indeed broken. Finding a job is a horrible experience for most people. If you know enough people in your selected field, it is usually not that bad. However, if you want to change careers, move to a new area, or are generally not interested in networking for networking's sake, finding a job is a soul-sucking misadventure.

Monster/CareerBuilder sites are absolute crap, especially for IT-related jobs. Indeed, Dice, and Jobing aren't that great either. The Web 2.0 job-hunt startups are just mashups of existing job sites so while the interface is cool, the content is no better. Most of the jobs have no mention of salary, benefits, or the social/managerial environment. Recruiters / headhunters are only interested in you if you are a potential fit for a specific job. The moment that job gets filled, you're back to square one.

I've actually been more on the other side of the job hunt i.e. finding people to hire. The problem there is that the good/quality coders are just impossible to find. Most of the resumes I come across are people who taught themselves Active Directory and are applying for ERP-coding jobs. I've looked at "superstar" job hunt sites like jobs.joel and jobs.37signals but there's barely any traction in my area (Tampa, Florida).

Surprisingly, Craigslist has been the best choice for me as a former applicant and as someone looking to hire. Craigslist is very blunt, direct, and accessible. The last part is the key here. You don't have to sign up for 10 services to place a job ad on Craigslist. As a result, I've found many more job offers on Craigslist that end up in an interview than other sites. I know with near certainty that someone is actually reading my email when I reply to a Craigslist post. I feel my email ends up in a large junk folder when I apply on other sites. Similarly, whenever I've posted an ad on Craigslist for a job, I've received direct emails from candidates and some of them have been pretty good.

I don't know how this system could be fixed. All I know is that there are a lot of good candidates and good jobs and it's not easy for them to find each other.

4 comments

Hey, I'm in Tampa. Maybe HN should have a better jobs section.
I haven't found it so bad and I'm not great at networking. I just use consulting agencies, that's the only way I've ever had any luck. It's easier to get into a company via someone who knows people there, than just some resume in an email.

The trick is just to remember these guys are extremely busy. If it's more than a week old it isn't relevant anymore, so get a contact within lots of different agencies and contact them on a regular cycle (once a month is probably ok).

"I've actually been more on the other side of the job hunt i.e. finding people to hire. The problem there is that the good/quality coders are just impossible to find."

What can I do to stand out as a quality coder when I'm applying? I'm probably not the best on selling myself properly but I think I'm a good coder (and have had very satisfied clients/employers).

Problem isn't what makes you stand out. Problem is where are you? How do I even find you? How do you find me? There are over 10k jobs on Monster for people with experience in LAMP in my area. Are you really going to apply to all of them?
The professions, and everything about them, are designed for people who don't have to work to earn a living, and who work out of service to society. Professional culture is a result of this. That's why rich kids do better in the professional environment. It's not anyone favors them because of their families. It's because they aren't ruined if unemployed for a while, so they don't fear the boss, get more respect, and handle a professional environment better.

The difference, circa 2010, is that nearly everyone has to work to earn a living. So the professional norms are out of date for most people.

This should shine some light on why interview processes are the way they are. For people who are working for love and leisure, a 2-month process from application to decision, with 2 or 3 rounds of interviews that require time off work, isn't unreasonable. For people who either (1) are unemployed and have a ticking clock, or (2) are employed but will be in trouble if they lose their jobs (which is likely if they're caught interviewing, in today's environment).

As for why it's so difficult to find good candidates, the interview process is a big part of it. Good candidates are only willing to go through with it for something approaching a dream job (for a hacker, Google Research; for a quant, DE Shaw). Otherwise, they ask their friends who they know and search informally.

Also, the fact is that most corporate environments are utterly mediocre and soul-sucking, and that hurts all but the most-established companies. There are probably 1000+ companies where a smart person could work and have smart co-workers, good pay, and interesting projects... but only a few stand out for having this reputation (e.g. Google). If you're not on this list of 20 companies, you're going to have a hard time proving that you're not one of those mediocre failboxes.

The professions, and everything about them, are designed for people who don't have to work to earn a living

Which professions? Ambassador to France?

The culture of banking, law, medicine, academia and management come from an era when the people in those professions didn't have to work for a living and, as I said above, were working out of service to the world.

This is why interviews occur during the day, advanced education is required, and advancement is based on acquired social ability rather than technical talent, among other things. It's also why the 40-hour workweek does not exist in such professions. If you're working out of service to society, and not for wages, it follows naturally that you'd continue working until finished regardless of the clock.

Of course, this "working out of service to society" aspect is an utter fiction in many professions today-- especially banking and law. It's just a job for them, and why should it be anything more?