[ravenstine]

Not only is there burn-out on the job, but could there also be interviewing burn-out?

In the software industry, you're doing yourself a disservice by staying at a company for more than 3 years. Even 2 years is pushing it, that is unless you are seeing wage increases that match or exceed inflation. And even if you haven't reached that amount of time, it's smart to start applying and interviewing earlier so you can have a better pick by the time you're ready to get out. I know some on HN will deny this, but I've seen enough resumes and LinkedIn profiles that demonstrate otherwise.

Hence, many of us are in a sort of medium-frequency cycle of interviewing. Applying for jobs becomes a job in and of itself, and as someone going through that process right now, I think the process has gotten much worse.

Not only are you likely to go through 3 to 4 rounds of interviews for a given employer, but now you've got to do take-home assignments. Most of the time, the estimated duration they provide is an understatement, especially if you actually want to show your best work. I've had 3 so far that wanted me to do a take-home assignment that they said could take several hours and even days. I refuse to do any that are estimated to be longer than 2 hours at this point. The other person is likely an introvert and sucks at interviewing, which can ruin your chances if they perceive the interview as not having gone well. In either case, you probably won't be hired at that place anyway.

Now multiply that experience by around 30% of the applications you've sent out. To have enough options on the table, you've got to send out at least 40+ applications (unless you've got a connection at a company already). Not only are you having to fight off all those other applicants, but you're spending a lot of your free time doing so.

Let's not forget the hours you'll also now have to spend hammering through Leetcode so you don't look like a complete fool in front of unrealistic problems you wouldn't be expected to complete in under an hour in real life.

Who actually doesn't dread facing this every few years?

I want to work in my field, but part of me also feels like saying "screw this" in favor of living in a van down by the river. Having experience might land you a better salary, but when you switch companies it's like being a junior developer all over again. I can only imagine how much it sucks for someone who has a family and kids.

[ryandrake]

I have a family and kid and hobbies and an already-demanding (time-wise) job and can absolutely say that the current high-friction hazing ritual style of tech interviewing dissuades me from looking around, even though I know I could make more by going through Thunderdome again. Even with recruiters reaching out and starting the process, interviewing is a grueling “second full-time job”.

[Aeolun]

It’s not that the interviews themselves are so terrible. I’m just a bit tired of random people saying I’m not a good fit because I couldn’t answer a specific question to their satisfaction.

I’ve been a valuable member of the team at my current company, and have received a mix of raises and promotions. I’m inclined to believe I’d do equally well elsewhere, but I first have to prove in a few hours what the past few years apparently couldn’t…

[WorldMaker]

Yeah, the nitpicky rejection cycles starts to feel like an industry wide mixture of gaslighting and almost intentional impostor syndrome creation tools. All the statistics of people in FAANG/GAFAM roles that feel stuck in them because they are certain they'd not pass the interview cycle again if they left. All the statistics of "dark matter" developers that are continually harassed by FAANG/GAFAM recruiters to interview but then continually ghosted without feedback following the interviews.

Lots of mentions of how much it resembles hazing rituals, and that also seems to be the intent of many hazing rituals: gaslight about the relative strengths of "the in group" and build survivorship bias among those that make it into "the in group" and survive the hazing rituals.

[WorldMaker]

I spent 8 hours on a Saturday the other weekend on a take home assignment and then spent most of Sunday regretting it and angry with myself that I'd let that eat into my weekend so much. The least companies could do is compensate this useless labor.

Interviewing also has been putting me into a spot where I'm starting to wonder if changing professions entirely may be less work.

I wish this profession would grow up. The hazing requirements of every interview cycle are so childish and immature and so perpetually stuck in "college bro culture". If we want a test before jobs, let's make it a standardized test you only need to take once in your career like a real profession would have. So many interviewers would appreciate the principal of DRY and yet as an industry we can't abstract away this menial repetitivity that other industries solved centuries ago?

[adrianmsmith]

> The least companies could do is compensate this useless labor.

I've found having the company present when you do the test, i.e. screensharing or whatever, is a good compromise. You can talk about the problem, and you know they've got some (time) skin in the game.

The tests become shorter when this is the case, e.g. 1 hour rather than 8 hours. Because they don't want to spend 8 hours sitting there while you do the test.

They're not going to invite 100 candidates to do that test if they only have one position open, but if they send out the test and you complete it on your own time they might.

[ravenstine]

> You can talk about the problem, and you know they've got some (time) skin in the game.

Perhaps it's better than being ghosted on a take home assignment, but am I the only one who thinks this is crap as well?

It sounds great on paper, for sure. But in my experience, talking about a problem ends up being like talking to a tree trunk. They say "we want to see how you'd work with us", but when I try and engage the interviewer (without asking them for the answers, obviously), I almost always get blank stares and it's super awkward. Even if I just speak out loud as I'm reasoning things, it's still weird as hell.

Yes, it could work if the interviewer was skilled at playing the role of a collaborator, but almost none of them are. Don't tell me to do a task as if doing teamwork on the job without even faking the teamwork part.

To your point, think the advantage is that they can't ghost you or overwork you that way.

[WorldMaker]

That's just it, it's a power imbalance that favors the company and not the interviewee.

Most cases when I've requested accommodations or told interviewers that I don't have time for their take home tests, I've gotten back: "Well, start over again in a year or so when you do think you have time. Let us know when that is, kthxbye."

Even from companies "desperate" to fill roles according to recruiters.

Many of those roles I'm fine with that too, if they want to waste my time on a lengthy take home assignment and a bunch of free labor that truly benefits neither of us, maybe it isn't the right role for me. Many of those roles I do the free labor anyway and regret it and it negatively influences any interest I have in further next steps and/or my entire opinion of the company. (I will absolutely shit talk the companies that have most wasted my time in interview processes.)

There's not a lot I can do about that power imbalance other than point to the fact that it is deeply systemic and wish that we'd mature the industry to better systems.

[ipaddr]

I went through this recently and by the time we reached the last stages of the process I've lost interest.

I realized I literally need to be unemployed to bother going through all of these useless stages.

Things I realized: The pay that is in the ad is always lower. That recruitor who won't go away just wants you part of a funnel they get paid for, if the company really wanted you they would just make an offer. Ghosting after sending a long take home tests is more common than ghosting after a regular interview.

[ravenstine]

Ghosting after a take home test really bites. Either provide feedback or give an expectation on how long it will take to make a decision. Don't make me do free work and leave me hanging.

But yeah, it does happen. I used to advocate for take home assignments, but now I really don't know what the answer is for directly assessing skill. Leetcode sucks, but take home assignments have their own problems. Maybe the problem with both approaches is that there really is no sort of standardization of practices or measurement of success that I'm aware of.

[WorldMaker]

Lawyers take a Bar exam until they pass it and then never have to take it again. They just have to stay up-to-date/active with the associated Bar (so many hours of training a year; etc).

Real Engineers take a Fundamentals of Engineering exam followed by the Professional Engineering exam in their discipline/focus. Then Engineers have to stay with the associated Professional Society (so many hours of training a year; paying dues; etc).

In the Software industry we love using the title "Engineer", but we don't seem to want to put the work in to make it an actual engineering profession. There is a software PE exam and professional society in existence already (ACM) built and willing to be the professional society for software engineering. I would take the Software PE exam and pay my ACM member dues in a heartbeat if that meant never needing to do another leetcode or take home assignment or whiteboard exercise in an interview cycle. We have the tools to solve this, just not the will to solve it, it seems.

[vonmoltke]

> Then Engineers have to stay with the associated Professional Society (so many hours of training a year; paying dues; etc).

Speaking for the US, they do not. Joining a professional society is not a condition of licensure, nor is licensure required to join (I have been a member if IEEE since I joined in undergrad in 2001 and never even took the FE).

Continuing education requirements are set by the state you are licensed in. Texas (where I would have been if I had pursued licensure) requires a mere 15 Professional Development Hours per year, of which five may be self-directed. That is far, far below what our industry expects.

Also, I worked for four years as an electrical engineer without even being an EIT. Not all "real Engineers" require licenses.

> There is a software PE exam

Not anymore. Every state that once offered it has dropped it, and NCEES no longer maintains such a test.

> if that meant never needing to do another leetcode or take home assignment or whiteboard exercise in an interview cycle

Considering how low the requirements for maintaining a PE are after passing the initial exams, I don't think that has a snowball's chance in Hell of flying in this industry.

[ravenstine]

I would pay $1000 to take one test so that I don't have to do another one for at least a decade. There's some real money to be made in selling the idea of accreditation to employers.

[WorldMaker]

Bar exam and MCAT exam prep industries do seem to make good money in some states some years. An appeal to capitalism isn't the worst idea for how to sell the idea to employers.

(ETA: Though arguably it is exactly how we got multiple companies like leetcode that are building the worst of both worlds, the standardized testing and extremely spotty employer buy-in across a handful of non-federated competitors.)

[ravenstine]

Leetcode is just based on the wrong premise. No one has to be a good developer or engineer to do leetcode. Even the people who run Leetcode don't need to be good engineers. Hosting a bunch of reductive code puzzles is a lot easier than creating structured exams and proctoring them. This isn't to say that the latter isn't feasible, but the incentive is there to fool the industry into thinking that the ability to solve puzzles is a good metric for technical skills.

[adrianmsmith]

> I used to advocate for take home assignments, but now I really don't know what the answer is for directly assessing skill.

The way we do it is a one hour conversation with screensharing where they have an IDE open and complete a small test. They know we're serious as we're spending our time as well. An hour is still an hour, but more reasonable than a weekend-long take-home test.