|
|
|
|
|
|
by itsdrewmiller
3389 days ago
|
|
|
If you are someone who behind the veil of ignorance can pass phone screens, then you will wash out 75% of the time through normal interviews. Your typical time cost is 4x offsite process + 4x onsite process to generate one interview. If you use triplebyte, assuming their interview is equivalent to a full interview cycle, your time cost is 1x offsite process + 3x onsite process - one for them, and two onsites with companies since your success rate is doubled. If you want to get more than one offer, the time savings increase further (and faster). |
|
|
> If you are someone who behind the veil of ignorance can pass phone screens, then you will wash out 75% of the time through normal interviews.
Veil of ignorance, huh? I'll run down the ways I've successfully gotten a job:
- Amazon (CreateSpace), by winning a contest they hosted. Multiple times. There was also an interview for this, though not of a problem-solving nature.
- eBay (Milo), by passing their online hiring challenge. There was no in-person interview for this; rather, they had me come in and work for a day.
- NCC Group, by passing their two challenges. There were in-person interviews for this too, largely consisting of them asking me if I knew how to do things and me saying "no". (I was told afterward that the reason my interviews had gone so oddly was that I had never provided them with a resume.)
Triplebyte themselves told me that I was exceptionally strong in "academic CS" -- the first time around. When they asked me to reinterview for their benefit, they highlighted it as a weak point.
My rate of success in applying to companies that rely on an interview instead of a project or other objective demonstration is 0%, not 25%. But I feel safe in saying that my interviewing problem doesn't lie in the fact that phone screens are hiding my basic incompetence from innocent companies.