[mlhpdx]

As a hiring manager I want to advise folks this kind of offer can be counter productive.

When being better prepared for an interview results in being more of a group and less of an individual it plays into a) getting stereotyped, b) being lost in the noise. I acknowledge that there are places so systematic this idea might beget “better” results (is working at such a place really better in a real sense?). However the clear majority of hiring managers I know care a lot about their teams and use great care in adding to them.

Personally, I have always prized complementary experiences and skills (incrementally improving the team) to formulaic qualifications — in other words, differences. Being a “highly prepared” candidate probably deducts from my likelihood of hiring someone. I don’t have to look far to see people I’ve hired have been successful (including here as YC founders).

I’m sure this kind of idea has its place, but I would try to be as balanced with the presentation of it as possible, and clear on where it works and where it doesn’t, with the best interests of candidates (and hiring organizations) in mind.

[yieldcrv]

says the guy that probably has one open role at any given time and zero quantitative possibility of explaining the rejections

Nobody knows that your random opinionated gatekeeping downrakes …. being prepared for an interview?

I would much rather see the recordings than listen to you

[HellDunkel]

So do I. I have zero confidence in hiring managers messing around with „complimentary skill sets“.