[yawnxyz]

Are those rejected from Big Tech better candidates than those who never applied (and thus never got rejected) from Big Tech?

Or is it specifically using Big Tech's first round interview approval for startups to skip doing doing first round due diligence in the first place?

What if there's something "off" in the way Big Tech accepts first round interviews but then rejects second round interviews?

My 2nd interview w/ Facebook (years ago) was so full of red flags I decided to never even consider big tech after that

[alexcarsewell]

None is better or worse candidates. But the fact is that a great amount of exceptional talent get attracted towards applying to Big Tech, and often they may get rejected for trivial reasons and lose self-belief.

Our aim is to change that and provide them an opportunity to do work that's more meaningful and exciting. The hypothesis is that getting to the 2nd and above rounds at is a metric that may indicate your skilfulness.

[chank]

There are few things wrong with the concept though. 1. Even poor candidates can get past first round at pretty much all big tech companies. 2. Most candidates who apply to big tech are looking for big tech salaries, benefits, and clout.

[chank]

It's just a sort of survivor bias. e.g. This happened to me or it's how I think so only people who have the same experience/mentality as I do should be the people I want on my team. You actually end up with a less diverse candidate pool because of it.