[kierangill]

I applied in early 2021. Getting rejected from any company carries a sting, but I was grateful to have gone through the process.

I didn’t realize at the time, but Oxide’s application process was the best form of interview prep I’ve done. The process forced me to thoroughly document my values and career accomplishments. In later non-Oxide interviews, I effectively recited what I had written my materials. In that way, it has felt less one-sided than every other company application process I’ve gone through. I was able to take away an artifact from the experience, versus being filtered out via a coding challenge. It’s also been rewarding to reflect on my submission from years ago to see how my mindset and skills have evolved.

If you have any interest in working in the pediatric telemedicine space, I encourage you to email me your application. We accept Oxide materials. I’m happy to provide feedback as a hiring manager. My email and our company website are in my bio.

[sudomateo]

Loved reading your experience here. Thank you for posting it. I've written about the value of an artifact in the past when people pushed back against the Oxide materials saying they are a lot of work for no guarantee. When I first applied to Oxide I was also rejected and the materials process taught me a ton about myself and changed the way I viewed job searching and my work. I shifted course and increased my skills and next time I applied I got an offer. There's power in the critical thinking and writing the materials force out of us.

[mystraline]

> they are a lot of work for no guarantee.

Well, its the assymetry of wanting a 10 year long documented CV with various orthogonal points in your career, versus actually having a 30 minute call.

Unlike an actual interview, which is equal time investment, this 20 page paper gets the commentary and result of "no". "No" what? You can ask an interviewer about concerns, and discussion points. This email from no-mail@ is just nothing.

And its not the sting of rejection. I've been turned down, and I too have turned down. But its the mechanistic, dispassionate, legalistic response after months of a "No". And not even a 'What we're looking for is.... '

[sudomateo]

It's tough on both sides. I understand the disdain of receiving a "no" after putting in hours or days of effort on the materials. Candidates are welcome to ask for feedback on their application but must understand that Oxide is limited in what we can say due to legalities. Hiring is a tricky balance on the legal front. I also understand that it's impractical to give every candidate a synchronous screening call just to confirm whether they should continue applying. Not only for time's sake but also bias. Is it enough for 1 person to do a screening call and decide someone's fate?

No hiring process will ever be perfect but at least, as the experience mentioned previously touched on, the candidate is left with an artifact that they can then use in future applications. Candidates walk away having learned something about themselves. Open roles are also limited, applying for such roles is also optional, and it's up to each candidate to decide how much time and effort they wish to put into the materials.

We're humans here at Oxide too, and we're doing the best we can to ensure the hiring process is fair and humane as well.

[MerrimanInd]

That's very interesting because in their episode on hiring practices they said that they hoped the materials would be a valuable exercise for anyone deeply engaged in a job search. Hearing that same feedback from the other side of the process really closes that feedback loop!