[bane]

>you seem to put a lot of thought into what is on people's resumes.

I actually really don't. I screen resumes pretty quick and just check for a few things. Can they format their resume like a grownup? Does the information appear to be accurate? Does it show relevant skills for the position we're looking for? Does it show an upwards career progression? Are their any oddball things that I'd like to talk with them about (work gaps, unusual education path vs. career, a stint overseas, an unusually short time at a previous employer) etc.

>Resumes exist to secure job interviews.

Then I'd ask, what's the point? Just build a quick site to collect people's names, phone numbers and email addresses, call it "apply for a job with Matasano" and be done with it? If it's not important at all in your process, why are you wasting your and the candidates time?

>but I didn't find that out until after we had hired.

Hell, why do you even interview them? Just check that they have a pulse and valid residency paperwork.

I'm sitting here reading this really rather incredulous that you couldn't be bothered to even ask this during the interview process, or as part of the basic job application paperwork.

Perhaps I'm colored because I do tend to do lots of hiring for contract work and my clients do need that information or we've just hired a wallet to toss money into that won't be doing much productive for us except burning overhead.

>it is 2011, and for at least the least 18 months, it has been a white hot competitive market for talent

Disagree, it's very strongly an employers market right now, the market is saturated with relatively qualified people looking for work. For every position we open, we get a couple hundred resumes. It makes it very easy to be picky at every stage of the interview process. Resume screening is just step 1. The interview process is absolutely critical to step 2 I agree.

I've seen many many horribly broken interview processes, all kinds of clever tests, and Microsoft style quiz questions. Really just having a long conversation with a candidate, treating them as a person and letting them talk about their career, with some guiding questions is about it. If it's a technical position, get some code samples, and talk them through some relevant scenarios or algorithm questions or whatever makes sense.

All of the best hires I've ever gotten flew past those 2 steps.

And I swear to all that's holy I agree that Monster.com is not the place to go as an employer or as a job hunter. Ugh, pile of failure that whole site is these days.

> "look, Bob! this candidate listed 'coursework in computational linguistics'! if he couldn't hack it to a degree, he'd never hack it here!"

I have to go 80/20 against/with you on this. Degrees are easy compared to real life work - shockingly so. If somebody can't finish a degree program with nothing in particular stopping them on what basis should I trust that they can finish a multi-million dollar project under tremendous pressure? You aren't going to figure that out no matter how clever the interview is if they don't have the prior history.

All that being said, I do have experience with self-taught guys who really are very good. But they need to have something else that makes up for it, a really amazing interview, some kind of really spectacular past performance or even amazing personal hobby portfolio that shows off their skillset. But theses guys are very rare. And all of them put "High School" under their education section on their resume. But then they have amazing portfolios of work to compensate.

Sometimes the education section can be an important marker to show upward progression over a career. For example, somebody who went to school later in life, or went back for a Masters or PhD or some such.

Sometimes they demonstrate odd ways you might be able to use a person. For example, you might be hiring for a sales position, and get a resume for somebody with a degree in Literature. Awesome, I bet you can talk to them about improving your company's advertising copy which would help them hawk your stuff better. Or maybe they are a self taught programmer with an Art degree. Super! Maybe they can provide good insight into improving a product's look.

So yeah, if they can't be bothered to put something down on the resume about where they got their learnin' from, I ain't interested in the least.

I'm not going to say that 100% of my hires are the best and the brightest. But I've done far better at it than most of my peers at weeding out poor candidates.

[cookiecaper]

It sounds like you're a tech recruiter or another guy from big corporate heritage. I say this because your answers are a shining paragon of why most of the participants at HN avoid and loathe big corporate jobs.

Do you have any particular programming qualifications yourself? I'm curious. While it is of course a great sign that you are reading HN, it doesn't sound like you know how to rate candidates in an objective and independent fashion.

Let me tell you that many of the legends in this field didn't finish or didn't attend college (and some didn't even finish high school) merely because college is really silly.

[Radim]

Your "legends" have (had) no need to apply for jobs, so your point seems off-topic.

More importantly, I found your comment unnecessarily offensive. The post you're replying to was fairly amicable and argued to the point, imo.

[cookiecaper]

I don't believe my response was offensive and I agree that the OP is arguing his point within bounds. I just strongly disagree with that point, and as stated, believe it is typical of a non-technical hiring manager instead of an "in the trenches" programmer.

How would you have preferred I phrased my response? I don't think any part is "unnecessarily offensive". It is a forgone conclusion that people on HN don't want to work for big companies, so if he is a hiring manager, he shouldn't be surprised.

[bane]

I wasn't offended, and I'm not a hiring manager. But I've definitely done most of my hiring in large boring mega corps. For the small startups I've worked for, willingness to work at a small startup often has major weight in the decision process and can overcome other problems that might exclude them from big corp's process.

[tptacek]

I'm personally familiar with the hiring processes at most of the big "mega corps" in the software industry (ie, places where software is the company's key profit center and not a cost center). So, because lots of people are reading this thread, let me clear this up right now:

You do not need an "Education" section on your resume to get a job interview at any software company in the valley you'd ever want to work at.

If you're interested in the kind of company 'bane appears to hire for, I'd recommend reading this first:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994193

[bane]

Again, disagree and wasn't aware we were restricting ourselves to only the Valley.

Yes, you need an education section on your resume. Only apply to companies that you wish to work for. Some will care about it, others won't. Those that don't care won't look at it, those that do will be glad you put it on. It's a Pascal's wager of sorts.

If you are applying to work at Matasano, by all means, delete it from your resume.

I've hired (or participated in the hiring team for) several hundred people for large companies (~35,000 employees, ~45,000 employees, ~125,000 employees respectively) and small (2 employees, 11 employees, 5 employees, 15 employees), for contract work (110 FTEs, 510 FTEs, 30 FTEs) and medium to large projects (30 FTEs, 80 FTEs). I've also cross-hired from different departments, projects, and programs.

I've personally seen probably on the order of 10,000 resumes.

I've never seen a resume of a person that was eventually hired that lacked at least a minimal education section -- and it didn't have to be a college degree.

I've sought out specific hires and have been sought out.

I've hired for positions that are salary only, salary + comission, salary + options, salary + direct stock, or some mix.

I've hired people with highly specialized skillsets and generalists.

I've hired sales people, programmers, analysts, executives, executive assistants, operations managers, operations staff, designers, musicians (yes!) and receptionists.

I've never like using recruiters or big job sites. I prefer to hire people with passion for what they do, and interview for personality as well as technical aptitude. You don't always get that luxury depending on the market and immediate business needs, but it's highly desired.

Education is a big plus, but I've never turned down somebody because of a lack of if they make up for it in experience, portfolio or other compensating factors.

I've never regretted a candidate I turned down. I can count on one hand people that slipped through my radar and ended up as real duds. I can count on two hands people that I turned down that were picked up by other companies and turned out to be real duds for them.

I've had to personally work with most of my hires either as a direct colleague, a report, or as a manager.

Who else uses a process not entirely dissimilar? Any company that asks for a resume, then gives you an interview (of any sort) based on that initial look at you. This includes, Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Cisco, Oracle and major software focused divisions of other companies like SAIC, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, etc.

Unless the company has a site called "apply to work here" where you just give them your name and a callback #, they care about your resume on some level. Even if it's just to have it on file to cover their asses in case of a bad hire.

If you don't want to work for these companies, that's cool. I don't either, and I have the luxury of not doing that at present since I work for a 10 person startup in my day job (and a two person for my night job). But I still consult with #52, #217 and #219 on the 2011 Fortune 500 almost weekly on hiring people.

But I'm just here to tell you the "way it is" (TM). If you want to be considered at these places, and unless you have some kind of other way of demonstrating your personal awesomeness, put an education section down.

[Confusion]

Even more legends did finish an education -- or even remained in academia.

[bane]

Yes, I have some technical chops - started coding on a TRS-80 Color Computer II in the 80s and never stopped. It's not something I do much of anymore (sadly) as a growing crop of grey hair has convinced my day job c-levels to shovel me into managing groups of technical people.

I also do lots of work outside of pure development in my day job, and it has wildly different sets of requirements, but the process is more of less the same. I've hired and managed a few more of these types than straight developers. But I've managed to have about the same success with both, or if we did hire duds for some reason (CFOs cousin or whatever), I noted the potential problems in their file and came out reasonably accurate.

The problem with trying to hire the next legend in the field is that more often than not, you are not hiring the next legend in the field no matter how they feel about themselves.

That's why legends are notable, they're unique and rare. If they are really that awesome, they'll become legends in their own time and you'll know about them before their resume hits your inbox. Building a hiring process for legends is fraught with peril. Legends are almost by definition not hire-able around repeatable hiring processes. So companies fake a process. Some companies select for specific schools -- like the too often true stereotype of top finance firms only hiring Harvard/Yale grads or top tech firms only hiring Stanford/MIT types. I've even heard of some hiring with a heavy weight on SAT scores or average KLOC per month!

As much as we all like to think of the lone swashbuckler programmer, coding his way to greatness in the fewest undocumented KLOCs possible, I'm hiring people to build actual things that other programmers of various talent levels from other organizations might have to work on months or years later long after my rockstar has moved on to greener pastures because we didn't offer him the office chair he wanted or whatever. In other words, I'm hiring for the best of typical. I need engineers, not crusading nights. I'm building the Golden Gate Bridge or the Empire State Building, not the Pioneer Space probe or filming and episode of MacGuyver. I've hired the rockstars before, there's a reason organizations tend to eventually move on to other processes.

I've worked with some absolutely unknown solid developers who I'd put up against the best in the field any day of the week, because they produced miracles on time and within budget. Absolutely stunning, elegant, rock solid software. But I'd rather focus on their steady solid performance over time. Rather than have a rockstar come in and dump down a few thousand lines of impenetrable code then flame out. I've found that solid, steady developers will ultimately outperform those guys every time. They'll do it right, and the bridge won't fall down or the building won't fall over.

If you are looking at tremendous number of resumes per week, you have to build a hiring process that selects for the best of typical. If you spot a super star in the pile, by all means talk to them, but you'll eventually find that most of the time they have overinflated egos. Hiring people is almost exactly like American Idol. 90% of all the candidates you see are bad, often spectacularly, often embarrassingly. The worst suffer from some of the most intense Dunning-Kruger effects I've ever seen. But you might find an honest to gosh amazing developer every once in a while and it's worth it to hire them. But don't build a process trying to find them, they'll find you.

If you don't build this kind of selective process, you'll spend literally all of your waking hours interviewing people. If you like this kind of thing, and your company is willing to let you do this, awesome. I have other things to do.

An all day technical interview sounds great, but now do this with 30+ candidates. Bye bye month of November. You need to weed people out and get it down to a manageable pool that you can then focus your time on.

I'm know what I'm saying may sound harsh or overly selective based on some arbitrary metric but it's all there for very good, repeatable reasons. But in practice these are only guidelines. If you went to school, awesome for you, I don't care where, be prepared to talk intelligently about the experience, be proud that you demonstrated the ability to complete a grueling, often mindless multi-year project on your own. If you didn't, but managed to autodidact your way to a great skill set, fantastic, be prepared to show and talk about why that worked better for you than going to school.

[tptacek]

Two things.

First, I wish you'd stop caricaturing everyone hired through a process other than yours as "lone swashbuckling MacGuyvers" or whatnot. I am not laying out a method for hiring "the next legend".

Second, it is incumbent on you to get better and more efficient at hiring people, and if you're stuck with "resume, phone screen, all-day interview", you've got your hands tied behind your back. There are so many ways to control and accelerate a recruiting funnel that it's tragic to be running one for a high-tech company the same way that Northern Trust runs them for junior bankers.

[bane]

Well, not that I was talking to you (I was talking to cookiecaper) But I appreciate the interest even if your reply is a little bit of a response to something I didn't say.

Near as I can tell your process appears to be first come first serve.

By your own statements, you don't look at resumes, and you apparently don't ask any particular questions about work history or education during your interview process. I'm guessing you have some sort of technical screen since you've alluded to having some sort of highly specialized selection process of some sort.

But I've illuminated you enough with what I've learned to be a solid and reliable process, and I know I must be unfairly characterizing your process above or you wouldn't be in business, so what's yours?

[irahul]

> By your own statements, you don't look at resumes, and you apparently don't ask any particular questions about work history or education during your interview process.

This thread is already a bit too long, and I haven't read through tptacek's link about his hiring process, but:

1. you don't look at resumes,

If I am hiring for a ruby on rails position specifically, the only thing I need to check is if you know ruby on rails. I know RoR, I know my requirements, I can evaluate if you are suited to this current role.

If I am hiring for RoR, but I am looking for a generalist - someone who might not know RoR but can pick it up on the run, then looking up at the resume for RoR isn't required. I will just talk general algorithms, design problems, code snippets.

2. and you apparently don't ask any particular questions about work history or education during your interview

Me: Let's say we need to have a threaded discussion forum. You know, like HN. Where replies can have replies.

Joe: Yes, I got that.

Me: Let's see how you go about deciding upon the models for that. I need upvote/downvote/recall vote on all posts. Here, take this piece of blank paper, and run me through how are you storing posts, and comments. And when loading a particular post, how are you going to load the posts and comments associated with them.

Joe: works through it

Me: That looks great, but I am concerned about the number of db hits.

Joe: suggests some kv store suitable for it, talks about storing graphs

Me: I think that's good enough. How about implementing upvote/downvote/recall vote.

Joe: Need to change the db models. I skipped them in the first iteration.

Me: Let's skip it. You know about closures? Care to quote me a particular example of closures?

Joe: function translator(el) { return function(text) { $(el).text(text); } }

    // Translate all i18n elements
    $('.i18n').each(function() { 
        // Text and callback
        AJAX_API.translate($(this).text(), translator(this));
    }

And so on and on.

I don't see why I need to specifically ask about your education. I might ask about your work experience, but not necessarily.

[bane]

Matasano's publicly stated process is basically to call them up on the phone, then begin a multi-week technical interview process consisting of several technical screens and some project work.

It's a first come first serve, but only if you are this tall, process.

It's intriguing, and the technical interview process isn't entirely unlike others I've seen, and does a good job weeding out persons that have no business working for Matasano.

Like anything there is an upside and a downside:

Downside first (because I'd like to end on a positive note)

As an applicant, you really want to have that job, because you just dropped applying for anything else for a few weeks while you run this gauntlet.

Good side:

Matasano ends up with qualified, eager employees who really want to be there.

The biggest problem for me in both of your examples is that, taken literally, you know only the functional capabilities of the candidate, but virtually nothing else.

People who can answer moderately deep technical questions are a dime-a-dozen in certain parts of the country. So while passing an intensive technical screen will generally yield solid employees, it can sometimes fail in interesting ways.

I remember a guy my friend hired just this year who passed all of the technical screens (all done remotely via phone interviews, webex and email) with flying colors, but had two problems: once employed, he just froze unless given explicit direction every 5 minutes, he had atrocious personal hygiene that was so bad it sent half a dozen people home ill. On his resume? Didn't finish his schooling, <1 year work histories at a half dozen companies plus some other warning signs I can't go into. An in-person non-technical interview would have revealed his other issues.

Unanswered questions for the Matasano process:

1) Can they actually finish an extended task or are they just good test takers?

2) Are they self motivated?

3) Do they tend to move about employers very quickly? (ladder jumpers, flaky personalities)

4) Have they performed well on teams?

5) Do they have a violent criminal history or dangerous psychological issues you should be aware of?

6) Do they have other skills you might be able to take advantage of in the future?

etc.

Hiring people is hard. Hiring good people doubly so. But a good hiring process should be well rounded so that you understand where you can use a person in your organization if you choose to hire them, and set expectations of performance up front. An anti-social super tech type might only be usable in development, while somebody with good presentation skills and strong technical skills might be more valuable in a variety of roles.

I'm not saying mine is the best and greatest in the world, but it's pretty good, and more or less what you'll find just about any place. Some places have oddball or one-off hiring systems that work well for them and provide them with their own desired metrics on an employee. I think that's great also.

Going back to the original point that drug us down into this conversational morass, resumes are fairly standard, and have certain things most companies expect to see. Building a resume based on the hiring practices of just one company is not something I'd particularly recommend unless you only care about getting hired at that one place and nowhere else.

Important! The resume won't get you hired, but it will get you an interview. Otherwise you need some selection mechanism to determine whom to interview or you'll spend every waking moment in interview hell.

[tptacek]

Our process is obviously not "first come first serve" (we would not be "very good" at screening candidates if it was), but we're pretty deeply nested in this thread to get into details.

A good starting point is http://www.matasano.com/careers.

But: that isn't the entirety of our recruiting process; it's just the portion most visible to applicants.

[cookiecaper]

I'm not saying that you should hire people without education in hopes that you're randomly selecting a future legend, I merely intend to point out that the policy of shredding every resume that doesn't have an Education section is a very wide buckshot that doesn't actually help much of anything. You should evaluate candidates on real, relevant criteria, not arbitrary "lines in the sand".

[jarek]

This conversation is great - and great fodder for my gripe that resume advice on the internet is useless unless it comes from the exact person or /maybe/ organization you want to be hired by. Everyone has their own idea of what the ideal application is, and they all think it's the most reasonable one.

[tptacek]

It is not a buyer's market for talent right now. It's a seller's market. You may be getting 100 candidates for every position, but they're terrible candidates.

[bane]

It's obvious that we're both pretty successful at finding people I think, through wildly different processes. I think it's fair to say I prefer to weed out front side via resumes, and you prefer to weed out backside in the technical interview process. And I think that's fair.

I do find it interesting on this site in general how I almost disagree with every single thing you post, yet you still seem to make it work, so that's always fascinating to me and helps remind me that there's often more than one way to do it.

[tptacek]

So I don't know you or who you work for, but in the interest of candor (and in a more interesting discussion) let me just say this: I do not agree. Your way is bad. The process you're advocating for recruits poorer candidates. It is also out of step with hiring practices in much of the software industry.

Rephrasing slightly and more specifically: if your recruiting process is "resume screen then interview" with no intermediate qualifying steps, and your resume screen includes "round file anyone who doesn't have an Education section": I hire better candidates than you, I'm more effective than you, and more and more people are going to hire like me and less and less like you, because your way is archaic and ineffective.

I am able to be this tactless and blunt primarily because you're an anonymous abstraction and I don't know anything about you other than this particular facet of your approach to our shared profession.

[bane]

I think you need to do two things

1) calm down

2) get over yourself

You aren't that amazing, even if you have more internet points than I do.

Is it just in your nature to try and insert as much friction as possible in all interactions where you disagree with somebody and hope to win by exhausting what you perceive to be your opponent? Or is it just possible that some of what you say it right and some of it is wrong (likewise for myself)?

So far you've called me a fool twice and insinuated that I'm grossly incompetent, then recognized that you are being tactless. With all due respect, go troll someplace else. You know that HN is not the kind of place for this.

[tptacek]

I said you'd be a fool to discard resumes that don't have "Education" on them, but the actual subtext of what I'm saying is "I don't believe you", just like I don't believe that after hiring hundreds of people, you've never seen someone hired that didn't have an "Education" section on their resume, as you intimated upthread.

Now, saying I don't believe you is also pretty rude, so: I'm sorry if that upset you. Getting upset is a reasonable response to rudeness.

As I don't believe we're actually having a conversation in good faith, the simplest solution to this problem is to stop replying to your comments, which is what I'm going to do.