[throwaway2331]

No one knows how to hire.

It's all bullshit, besides "do I believe we can work together?"

I've been on the interviewer/hiring side, and frankly the only thing I looked at were: schools/companies/noteworthy positions.

5 seconds. If the resume was dogshit, I wouldn't know. No one reads em. It's probably all lies any way.

Usually a single 30 min conversation over the phone is enough to decide whether or not someone "fits."

And that's basically just talking shop/getting a simple convo going.

Don't take it too seriously.

[nh2]

> No one reads em.

I do, and I know others do.

I did resume reading and technical interviewing as part of the hiring process of a Haskell consultancy. Over 5 years, interviewed around 50 people, for both the consultancy and its customers.

I read the resumes carefully. They were generally informative and accurate.

When somebody mentions expertise in a specific tech stack or theory, I ask them in the interview to explain me a key part of that, how it works and what its intricacies are. React in the CV? Show me an example. Haskell-in-production expert? Write me some code that takes down a web server, then show me how to do it well. Expert in COQ, Agda or Idris? Prove it.

It becomes apparent quickly if somebody is bullshitting in a CV, if you care to notice.

This approach worked well and wasn't changed since.

[Aeolun]

You have such a different way of looking at resumes… I practically ignore schools and companies and just look at what they actually did there (wherever it was).

[throwaway2331]

To be absolutely frank: it was under "startup"-like circumstances, so I was looking for people with good networks, that I could tap into when needed. Unfortunately, that didn't turn out to be meaningful, except to open a few doors (a wee-bit faster, than doing it my self), and having a pool of people (friends and former co-workers of employees) to hire from, that were more likely to work well together and "mesh" into the org, than someone "off the street."

I saw no discernible difference between people of pedigree and the "state school," "boring corp."s of the world -- except that the former's names and institutions they were associated with were good marketing.

If someone is motivated enough, they can pretty much handle whatever you throw at them. Having better domain experience (f.e. being a software lead vs. a mid-level programmer) accounted only for how quickly they were expected to become useful, and "figure it out."

And the "Plain Janes" of the working world were usually more motivated to make a name for themselves, than those who've already been established. Some of the latter were downright useless; coat-tail riders.

The ones who had been screwed over/discriminated against/temporarily demoralized by circumstance, but were otherwise high-performers were always a treat, though. Seemed to have chips on their shoulders and would go the extra mile at any opportunity that gave them simple respect and acknowledgement. However, such earnestness is liable to be taken advantage of by the short-sighted.

I don't think I've even ever read what's written underneath those "COMPANY - POSITION - DATE" headings. I always assumed they were either so general to be useless, puffed up and massaged statistics to sell one's importance, or unintelligible and lacking actionable substance.

The only thing I look for nowadays, with anyone I associate with, is whether or not they're motivated, and if I can work with them. Usually, that just means they can take direction if they're subordinate; or they lack ego, if we're equals/they're on a higher plane than I am.