[steveklabnik]

It is true that we ask a lot upfront. But just to be clear about a few things:

> There is no guarantee they will read your responses with the same care you put into writing them

Multiple people review every single submission.

> almost certainly they won't, since they have actual work to do an honest reading

This is why there is such lag time in even getting a response; you are correct that it takes a tremendous amount of work, but also that there's a tremendous amount of non-hiring work to do. We are not always perfect at balancing these things, and the queue can grow.

> so at some point they will be forced to change it.

I am in full agreement that as companies grow and change, their processes must also grow and change. That doesn't mean that the initial processes are inappropriate. That's the nature of building something new.

We will see at what point changing this process makes sense. It's worked decently well from the first founders (who themselves underwent this process, with each other) up to our current size of about sixty. And speaking purely for myself, the problem as I see it is that we have to say "no" to some wonderful folks, not that we struggle to find people to apply.

[slillibri]

With the large up front ask, do you put an equal amount of time and effort into explaining why you pass on a candidate? My biggest issue with tech hiring is the complete and utter lack of feedback of any sort.

[steveklabnik]

I am not personally involved in rejecting candidates, but I have heard anecdotally that people have found what gets sent out to be nicer than what they've heard from others.

Have you gotten more feedback in other industries? To be honest, I thought that general standard is essentially silence. But it's been many years since I've worked in not-tech.

[pclmulqdq]

Most companies are totally silent on what went wrong for legal reasons, although many will give you the courtesy of saying "no" instead of ghosting you once you have had an interview.

It does seem a little bit suboptimal to ask so much upfront from people who you would never hire. A company with a similarly large early screening form, Reservoir Labs, does a first resume screen before sending an invitation to respond to their screening questions. I would suggest that you do the same out of politeness to candidates.

[bcantrill]

We're not going to do a resume screen, because too often we have found that a resume does not accurately predict the quality of the materials (in both directions!). People are certainly welcome to not apply to Oxide; the world is large, and this company emphatically isn't the right fit for everyone! Indeed, part of the reason that we chose to make this process public is to allow people to better decide if it's worth the investment of time and energy -- or not!

[rbanffy]

I would advise caution at hiring someone who is excessively willing to go through an immense set of hoops just to get hired, as this might indicate a disproportionate willingness to work for you.

Honestly, it feels suspicious.

It’d probably be better to invest the (substantial) work done in reviewing the submission in a more structured interview process where the traits can be better assessed.

[steveklabnik]

We do not evaluate people on “how much they want to work here” but instead on relevant skills. As mentioned in this thread (and on our jobs page) we get enough applicants that it takes 4-6 weeks to even read materials, on average, and so have to necessarily reject a large number of people. Simply wanting to work at Oxide is not a differentiator. Everyone who applies does!

[meejah]

For sure making the _process_ public is a big plus!

(All companies should make their hiring process transparent and public).

[pseudalopex]

More feedback? No. Less time demanded? Yes. And your company's application process is more demanding and more personal than most in your industry. Does a generic response show Oxide's values of candor, courage, empathy, and transparency?

[bcantrill]

We don't provide feedback on folks that we don't interview -- for reasons not dissimilar to Y Combinator's logic for the same policy.[0] I wouldn't phrase it quite the same way, but we are grossly oversubscribed as a company, and we as a result end up rejecting people who would probably succeed here.

[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/whynot

[meejah]

If someone demands hours of free labour for "code exercises" or whatever, the absolute bare minimum is that you put some portion of that back into meaningful code review.

So you should probably be spending _more_ time on the feedback for rejected candidates. Be specific, tie it back to your evaluation criteria that you wrote down before asking for the exercises to be completed.

[bcantrill]

We at Oxide don't ask for code exercises, but perhaps you're making a more general comment?

[steveklabnik]

I read the parent as metaphorical; if we did code samples, code review would be expected, so since we do not, an equivalent review would be nice.

I get the sentiment but it’s very tricky; most places do a screen and then an interview and so review takes place during said interview, we are heavier allocated on “the screen” in a sense. It would be even more work in our circumstances to do so, since we have more people in that stage of the process than others.

[meejah]

Yes, I was making a more general comment (I think it does still apply whether there's actual code-exercises or not though).

If it's "too much work" for you, might be time to re-examine how much work you're asking for.

I also think these sorts of things select for candidates that have lots of time for "applying to places" (which will naturally select against people already in jobs, or who already value work/life balance).

Your process doesn't look as onerous as some I've seen for sure -- but perhaps you _should_ add a "screen" portion and thereby not ask for the "long form" work from candidates you'd reject anyway (also buying more time for meaningful feedback to those you do ask the work of).

[rbanffy]

> Multiple people review every single submission.

This puts you in a vulnerable position to attacks with generative AI. Assume a person using such a tool could generate a relatively large number of credible submissions in addition to their own as a way to limit your ability to assess possibly real competition.