[gzer0]

The issue is the sheer number of fradulent and stuffed credentials people have begun using, and applying, en masse to job positions.

To be clear, I dislike the current way interviewing is, but do you have a better solution to screen out 7,000 applicants? The vast majority will be knocked out by the leetcode style interview, and sure, some brilliant minds might fail because they can't remember linked lists in the moment, but atleast you screened down from 7,000 -> 70. If there is a better way, we'd all love to know.

I am prepared for this to be voted down, but I am genuinely wondering the answer to this.

[ipnon]

I think the distinction to be made is between the process of finding the best out of 7,000 and finding someone sufficient out 7,000. The first is surely extremely expensive for companies. The second can be done in a week or two. I think the anecdotal evidence shows though that no company can accurately do the first, and the gamification of this process is a deeply researched topic, so it's likely that a company that believes they're accomplishing the first is really doing the second in practice, all the while spending unnecessary money and time, and deluding themself into thinking they found the needle in the haystack.

My belief is that if you aren't doing Ph.D. level research, all you need to do is get the candidate to prove they can write themselves out of a bag with React/Python. Anything else is overkill, and a real cost loss to the business in terms of money and time.

I will admit that for most businesses there will be times to do the first, and time to do the second. But I imagine this distribution is something like 20/80, whereas most companies are doing 80/20.

Coding is hard, but so is marketing, accounting, management ... But are your marketing candidates being put through the ringer too? I suspect software engineers are being uniquely hazed.

Peace & Love

[ravenstine]

That's a false choice. The number of applicants is mostly a function of time, so if 7000 applicants is too overwhelming then just throw out 6900 and focus on evaluating 100 of them. To weed through thousands of candidates is to believe that you can find the one that's exceptional, yet if the position being advertised doesn't need to be filled by a genius then it's strange to scour the earth for the right person. If you are at the point where a genius is needed then hiring through personal connections is probably the better approach.

But if I must write code as an applicant, it better be similar to real world tasks and not some bullshit, especially if my chances of getting hired are still slim. Having to do work in order to get hired is literally sucking the lifeforce out of me, so don't suck even more out of my via the agony of glorified brain teasers.

[higeorge13]

I worked in ATS company and 7k seems like an exaggeration. Most companies would only get tens of candidates, some of them hundreds and only a tiny minority would get thousands. I would also confidently say that the vast majority have sourcing issues, and that’s why they ask recruiters, agencies, etc to fill more applicants to their open positions.

And yet, all these companies would have complicated hiring pipelines to hire. I have seen examples which made me laugh; like receiving tens of cvs and asking almost all of them for take home exams (felt sorry for the reviewers and the candidates who lost their time), multi stage technical reviews for companies with less than 10-20 employees, final executive level interviews with more than 5 candidates in parallel, time to hire times of 3-6 months, etc.

[Swizec]

> Coding is hard, but so is marketing, accounting, management ... But are your marketing candidates being put through the ringer too? I suspect software engineers are being uniquely hazed.

My girlfriend works on the business strategy side of Fortune500’s. Our interviews look like a joke compared to theirs.

[jokethrowaway]

My developer friend stopped working as an engineer because he found out he can pass those interviews with no preparation and the job takes way less effort compared to software.

He's now doing two jobs at the same time and the companies don't notice he's barely doing anything but appearing in meetings.

YMMV

Big corporations are incredibly wasteful, so I'm not surprised.

I also know plenty of developers who do little at work, but at least they need to produce a substantial amount of code, at the end of the day.

[Swizec]

> he can pass those interviews with no preparation

I've never had to prepare for an engineering interview in some 15 years of doing this professionally.

> the job takes way less effort compared to software

The easiest part of my job these days is writing code.

The challenging fun part is setting a technical strategy that aligns with the business and gardening the team around me with soft influence towards that strategy. Super challenging. Would've been easier to just do it myself, but there's only so much I can do on my own.

Ultimately, you should go do whatever comes to you easiest and/or is most fun. No sense grinding away at something you're not good at. Maybe your friend has an immense talent for business and strategy.

[boppo1]

Also interested in top strategy interviews. Not that they aren't hard, just that "strategy" has always seemed so ephemeral to me. My business profs failed to impart any real criteria to define it. Seems like something people either have or they don't and all you can do is hire based on past success.

[Swizec]

> all you can do is hire based on past success

That’s kinda what they do.

You are put through an initial ringer to vet for basic fit and competence. Then you get a take-home exercise that consists of several business case studies. You have to detail a strategy for what you would do in that situation, support your argument with research, etc. My girlfriend said it’s a lot like writing a term paper in college.

Last time she interviewed it took her I think 2 or 3 days of full-time work to do the case studies.

Then you go back and defend/present/discuss your work at an interview.

Her job consists of doing basically that, but with a team, larger consequences, more direct ownership, and loooooonger processes because so many people get involved in everything. Her team is strategizing what could become a trillion dollar product (in like 10 years) if they get it right. It’s pretty cool.

[Shocka1]

As a software engineer I would rather do what your gf does than leetcode problems. I went to school already for six years and don't feel like hanging out on a website for the next six months solving CS problems.

I've always been of the opinion that a take home software engineering project that I can present in the interview would be preferable. Coding alone for a few hours and then being able to get all my ducks lined up.... Sounds like a practical and great interviewing process to me.

[dmitryminkovsky]

What are they like? Are they asked tangentially pertinent brainteasers and riddles?

[badlucklottery]

Yeah, having an entire day of 4-5 leetcode-esque interviews seems excessive (looking at you Google) but having none also seems irresponsible IME (looking at you government contractors).

I've been in organizations that were spawned by both of the above extremes. The former is definitely more pleasant to work in (everyone is at least competent) even if the interview was much less pleasant to do. I do feel like more orgs should try to target the middle ground instead of just aping Google and going ham on the leetcode shit.

[baby]

Sure if you have a lot of noise, now if you know the people? If you’ve been working with them for years akready? Even engineers who want to change role within the org have to re-interview and do these silly exercises. I actually find leetcode things more valuable than system design interviews which are more like “let’s see how you can pretend you’ve built things at scale eventhough you’ve never done it”

[xeromal]

I agree with you. It's just not going to work to trust peoples credentials especially now that people from across the states can apply to our jobs. I'm a fan of take-home projects though. You still need to find a way to reduce the number to something meaningful but a take home gives them time to think about the task, but also gives me an opportunity to hear them walk through their code when we talk.

If they "cheat" by having stack overflow do their work for them, but they can explain it well enough, they probably understand the concepts at least.

[vanusa]

from 7,000 -> 70

Do you have any hard data behind that ratio?

Or are you just kind of ... making those numbers up?

Because they, you know, "feel right"?

[em500]

Google receives about 3 million applications per year, and hires less than 1% of them. Not all of them for dev positions, but still probably at least a million. Google is probably the most popular, but even the maligned Facebook gets a few hundred thousand applications per year.

I concur with the parent's point. HN is perpetually complaining about tech interviews, but nobody ever suggests a viable alternative that can cope with such application volumes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/17/heres-how-many-google-job-in...

[Beltalowda]

Companies like Google (and similar) are kind of the exception; I'm starting a job next week, and I had an initial video call for almost all jobs I applied for when searching. Sometimes I wrote a cover letter, often I don't. My CV is decent enough, but not uniquely "oh wow!"-type of impressive. I don't think I was filtered out of thousands of applicants in ~90% of the cases.

While remote positions can certainly receive a lot of "noise applicants", as I discovered in my last job, you can filter out half, if not more, on just a quick pass. Most companies are dealing with dozens of candidates at the most, often less. Certainly not thousands of them.

[vanusa]

Google (and all the other companies with similar net hiring ratios) use multiple factors to narrow their pre-interview pool; including standard techniques such as resume and phone screening. And then there's in-person interview itself, which involves broader cognitive and personality assessments (apart from in-person LC recitation).

The parent poster was literally saying that LC screening by itself will get you your 99 percent reduction.

[em500]

Of course, LC-only won't get you there, and all companies with LC use the whole arsenal. But I don't doubt that LC will filter out a very large fraction of applicants (hence the incessant whining on HN). The point is though, with Google-like application volumes, if they drop LC they'll need to substitute it with something that also filters out a very large fraction.

The actual hiring ratio at google is something like 0.2%. They pass over 998 out of 1000 applicants, so no matter what they do, they'll pass over a substantial number of qualified people, and no matter what they do there will be complaints on HN.

[vanusa]

I'll go with a "very large fraction".

It was this resorting to made-up numbers that I found to be kind of weird.