[radug14]

Hey! I think it's quite the opposite, and I'll explain why.

Let me just apply one example. A few years ago I was screening candidates over a 30-minute live coding interview covering pretty day to day stuff. That required a 30 minute investment from the applicant in what is a high-stress situation for many. I can't tell you how many times they seemed very stressed simply because they had to code in a live interview setting knowing someone is actively watching what they are doing.

Now compare that to a 20-minute screening interview where most of that pressure is gone. You can do it whenever you want to.

That is my rationale behind it, thinking both as an applicant and as a hiring manager.

Why do you think this leads to more wasted time?

[t_mann]

How is "most of that pressure gone"? You're still being evaluated and have to code against a clock, with less time, less opportunities to ask questions and less immediate feedback that could get you back on track.

Also, your 20 vs 30 minute calculation ignores that companies are incentivized to conduct more screening tests if it becomes practically free for them. But the number of positions stays the same. So if instead of 10 screening calls they do 16 tests for one position, that's already more time being wasted, even if the tests are 1/3 shorter. And realistically, the number will shoot up much more.

[radug14]

The challenges are designed for an average engineer at the job opening level (junior, mid, senior) to solve in approximately 10 minutes. Furthermore, they are practical day-to-day tasks that should not put pressure just by nature of what's being asked.

For your last point, a review takes on average 5 minutes for a hiring manager. And I think screening more is not inherently a problem. Imagine they turned down the dial on their CV filters and had more applicants do a technical screen - wouldn't that give more applicants an opportunity to shine? In most cases it unfortunately is a numbers game.

[gpm]

You're literally making the argument for why the problematic scenario the person you are responding to will occur. It costs nothing to waste the candidates time with this tool, so people will "turn down the dial" and do that.

They'll keep running screenings after they've got someone they're almost sure they are going to hire, because if the deal falls through its better to have candidates in the pipeline.

They'll run screenings before they bother to evaluate if they're even interested in a candidates skill set, because you've made it cheaper to filter out candidates for lack of technical skills than lack of job fit. (And no forcing them to meet the candidate once before running this tool will not change the fact that they will do this)

And so on and so forth. Which is ironically why using this tool would filter the best candidates from the hiring pipeline while simultaneously making life worse for everyone who isn't one of the best candidates and who does have to put up with many companies wasting their time to get a single job offer.

[radug14]

And is that not how hiring works today, or are we pretending that hiring processes are completely fair and non-biased?

How many companies still ask for take-home exercises?

[t_mann]

So in summary, there is actually no pressure that would need resolving, and time being wasted by applicants is a good thing?

[helicone]

Because an automated screening system allows the company to screen many more candidates without interacting with them, which they will do, which will make the majority of these screenings wasted effort.

Let's look at two cases to see why this is: Case 1: company does 10 30 minute in-person technical interviews for a role for equally qualified candidates, doesn't use automated testing. Every candidate knows that because they're talking to a human, so they know they're dealing with a human hiring process that deals with time constraints. They KNOW that they're one of a small group of people selected to move forward. They can reasonably calculate a value for their in-person technical interview as having a 10% chance of success. If they do 7 interviews like this they have a >50% chance of getting hired by someone, which would take them only 3.5 hours of interview time to achieve. Each such hiring process has only take up a combined 5 hours of candidate time.

Contrast this with case 2: company uses your system, and so technically screens 1000 equally qualified candidates in the same period with no human interaction. The candidate now has no idea where they stand in the applicant pool, but they effectively have a 0.1% of getting hired by this company. If they do 666 interviews, they still don't have a 50% chance of getting hired by any company doing interviews like this, and they will have spent two whole weeks of their life not eating or sleeping, just doing interviews. That company will have wasted three weeks of candidate time conducting this round of interviews.

Furthermore, the 10 minute time difference is irrelevant, the candidate already doesn't care when they do the interview, and the pressure in no way lessened. They still have to perform in a 30 minute window, and they will still be nervous. The only difference is the recorded screening is more impersonal, which allows the candidate less opportunity to make a human impression on the hirer.

Your system assumes the applicant's time has no value.

[radug14]

If they do what you said, they will have no way to actually differentiate between candidates so they will waste their time and money on using my platform. Doing screening calls asynchronously doesn't open the floodgates.

[riku_iki]

> Now compare that to a 20-minute screening interview where most of that pressure is gone. You can do it whenever you want to.

how its gone? Candidate is still being judged, but now by unknown potential AI judge without understanding how he will be judged..

[radug14]

There is no AI judge.

[UncleMeat]

I'd personally be vastly more stressed having to narrate my actions to some unknowable AI that provides zero feedback than speaking with an actual human.