"I think you need a better system, and I think it’s probably going to be more like an apprenticeship or an internship, where you bring people on with a much easier filter at the beginning. And you hire them kind of on an experimental basis or on a training basis, and then you have to sort of see what they can do in the first month or two."
How does he expect this to work? Developers quit their job to "try out" and some percentage just get fired immediately?
I've done this at a few companies as a hiring manager--offer the candidates a 10 hour/week (or whatever they can commit to) contract to do X thing until Y date. They set their own hours, but they can't expect folks to be available afterhours. Evaluate how far they got based on the hours they committed. Typically shows how their work style will be, but can't really evaluate their interpersonal skills/"meeting persona".
The contract to hire contracts I've worked as a developer the past 30 years were either 3 month or 6 month periods and 40 hours per week.
No offense but I'd be highly suspicious of someone offering contract to hire only 10 hours per week, it doesn't sound like the company has much skin in the game.
Sounds great for entry-level, and terrible for people leaving jobs for new ones. It's an enormous life-changing decision to invest energy into leaving a job for a new one. I'm never going to do that for "a 10 hour/week contract to do X thing until Y date", and neither are any of the people I'd love to hire.
So how does that work if you are in another job? Most contracts forbid working for another company. And if they aren't in another job how do they pay bills on ten hours a week?
It's not unheard of. Some company fire low-performers without second thoughts. I work in a big tech company, and I've been quite surprised to see young recruits "disappear", even though the entry bar is high. I'd be curious to know the stats.
It would work wonderfully for candidates who don't currently have a job, or at least a job they have much interest in keeping. Examples:
* newly graduated student
* someone who wants to break into software engineering from an unrelated industry
* someone re-entering the workforce after an extended leave (e.g. caring for a child, parent, or one's own medical issues)
For someone like you who (I assume) is currently employed as a software engineer, it's obviously a worse option than the traditional leetcode-oriented interview.
I think we should "invert, always invert", as Charlie Munger put it. Why do we expect a N-session by M-hour interview be a reliable signal that a candidate is someone you want to work together with for at least a month or two. And many companies not only have an ineffective hiring process, but also an ineffective firing one. Well, what about work together for a month or two and see how things go
Oh I haven’t had that happen in such a very long time.
Like CI, onboarding is a process we get better at by doing. If I work some place that hires consistently, I’ll make sure to sit with a new engineer at least once a year to 18 months and observe them going through the documented process. Save them when they get stuck, and rephrase that part of the documentation.
I’ll also prompt them to make changes as well, for one very particular reason: when you encounter a jargon term for the first time maybe the first half dozen times, you still have Beginner’s mind. You can still explain it to someone below you on the ladder. Senior staff can get trapped in circular definitions and unspoken assumptions.
Generally speaking, I find that the people who hate ramping up new engineers have made a mess that they don’t like to think about, and onboarding makes them look at it.
I find that for most seniors, you should follow the documentation with check ins from current employees. If the documentation is obtuse then have the new hire correct it so that the next new hire having the same information at that point will understand what to do better.
Yes, but double check their work. If they’ve made a mistake that is visible in the documentation, you can fix it now and also have a teachable moment. But as I said above: resist the urge to rephrase what they’ve said unless it’s factually wrong.
When I’m onboarding people, fixing bugs in the docs is the first task they complete. It helps everybody, and it keeps them from having to jump into fixing bugs in code they don’t understand at all yet for just a little while longer, while they build their 10,000 foot view.
Ha ha, that happened to me years ago at a small startup. I spent the first day scavenging spare parts around the office and was able to build a working desktop PC.
Similar thing happened to a friend who joined a large defense contractor. They had stacks of new computers sitting in a storeroom but the workforce was partially unionized and only union electricians were allowed to plug in new computers. Totally crazy, but he had to wait a couple weeks until they got around to it.
I don’t believe this is “also”. I think it is most of it. Software companies hate rejecting people who are in their club so much that they put all their energy in keeping them out in the first place.
Then there are also the people who believe interns are a waste of time. Theres a very high overlap between these people and the ones that some of us complain about at lunch as being a difficult coworker. If you can’t learn by teaching, then I have some serious doubts about whether you understand “teamwork”.
It might be possible for a company like Google, which is so buried in qualified applicants that they could decide to only hire left-handed people born on a Monday and they'd still be able to fill all their open positions.
Especially if you're the kind of company that doesn't need to make many experienced hires, but recruits a lot of people straight off college campuses.
Yes they do and I actually think it is a fair way to hire.
In other professional areas if you want entry level salaries of 150k that can get you up to 500k you have to take extra education like masters, mbas or whatever, which means time and money. In software engineering you have to spend hours in hackerrank or leetcode and I would personally prefer to spend that time in a big company as an intern, even as a grown professional in the same way you take management programa. I think that time would be more profitable than doing brain teasers and for sure we (the company and I) will get to know each other.
> entry level salaries of 150k that can get you up to 500k
Only a tiny minority of programmers work in Silicon Valley. Those numbers are completely unrealistic everywhere else in the world. Don't act like we make the same as doctors and lawyers.
(While I agree with the former, we do often make about the same as doctors in our own market once you subtract their liability insurance. Then factor in more opportunity cost and college bills at the beginning of their careers…)
Thanks for bringing this up. It's always good to remember that while there are lawyers earning seven digits, there are also those earning government/non-profit salaries, and lots in the middle.
That is exactly my point, as a software developer if you want to make the same than a doctor or a lawyer (btw this also only applies to the US where they make astronomic amounts of money) you have to go through this process.
My experience is that only the ones that give you access to top salaries, wherever you are are, are the ones using this type of recruitment. There are tons of positions you can get without going through this and paying less.
many young MDs in the USA are drowning in school debt; some middle years MDs have bad luck with money D-I-V-O-R-C-E ; some young attorneys do not have an onramp to the higher paying situations.. in other words, there is a curve, it is not instant financial success as it appears when viewing top-earners.
Call a contract organization and bring in a few people for a 6 month contract. At the end of the contract offer jobs to the good ones.
6 Months is only because that is what contract organizations want - you can buy the good people out sooner, but they need 6 months from people to make their budgets work. 6 months is plenty of time to ensure you know if someone is bad or just slow to get productive, but not too long to pay someone who is not worth it.
I’ve had that happen a few times. Generally there may be a signing fee paid to the contractor.
Though in one case I got the job first and the contracting house second. BigCo had approved vendors but was having trouble finding people with the skill sets they needed.
there is a lot of financial incentive to just dump everyone and restart again and again; also financial incentive to extract work beyond the terms of the agreement, and to invent failure to justify reducing new offers. Some senior management looks for people who signal that they can and will do this to others, also hire intermediaries to oversee the process who will bear false witness against the employed. Magnify all of this in the USA where access to health care (or a green card) are contingent on employment.
That leaves you only with candidates that are willing to work on a contract. Most are not that desperate. Do you want desperate employees? then go ahead. Also, don't be surprised when people that like contract work jump ship as soon as something slightly better appears on the horizon.
This happened to me. Company was on the verge of extending me an offer for a full time position. Hiring manager and team loved me. Then the CTO pulled some bullshit and the offer became one for a 6 month contractor, not a FTE.
I took the job anyways because I was desperate (had just been laid off). But I continued interviewing every chance I got and jumped ship at around the 5 month mark. The CTO was livid that I abandoned ship.
I think more aggressive use of probationary period, and more narrative interviews would probably work fine and be less stress on both sides of the hiring
How is a probationary period less stressful for the employee? Quit my current gig with salary + health insurance, only to work at a new place where I might get suddenly let go after three months? Then I am working against the clock to keep bread on the table. Let alone people who might have visa situations.
Sure, you can always be fired at the drop of a hat, but significantly worrisome to walk away from a stable situation for a new job where firing is more easily performed.
It isn't, but I'm pretty sure the status quo is a time consuming interview with lots of puzzle solving coupled with a probationary period and a vesting cliff. I think because hiring is so difficult (on both sides of the table) that people get cold feet with marginal performers during the probationary period. Employees are reluctant to leave - interviewing is very hard, and managers are reluctant to fire - sourcing is very hard.
My thesis is that if interviewing was easier, both leaving and sourcing would be easier and everyone would win
Programming would be much easier from a job-seeking aspect if we didn’t have private medical insurance, and it would be amazing if we also had UBI. Try stuff out, fail, try again.
I don't think the average software developer in the US is paying anything close to the average rate for rents or mortgages, so I'm not sure how you think UBI would help keep them afloat in between jobs.
Financial discipline doesn’t help you with a cracked filling or a broken arm.
If you’re really honest with yourself, and us, the people who say they can’t afford to quit their job (for financial reasons) we think less of those people. It’s not because we’re petty, it’s because they’re living beyond their means in a profession where that is just so dumb you have to question their judgement on other things.
If they say they have to stay because they need the insurance (for themselves or especially their family) we collectively groan and bitch about the state of medicine.
UBI for devs isn’t to pay rent, it’s to lower your burn rate between jobs.
Whole lotta comments here about how much better this is for the hiring org, and sure, I guess, but we can’t get candidates to do a 2hr take-home assignment at their own pace to knock half a day off the interview process, I don’t know how the hell you expect someone to commit to working at your shop for 3 months. Re: “call it a contract” - sure, and I should just take COBRA during your evaluation period?
Absolutely if you’re hiring new grads, go nuts with whatever this is, but if you’re looking for people with existing careers and responsibilities, this ain’t gonna work.
I would have considered that back when I was actively looking–if I were being offered senior contractor rates. That's $150/hour minimum these days. I'm guessing that's not what they had in mind, but you never know!
> ...but we can’t get candidates to do a 2hr take-home assignment at their own pace to knock half a day off the interview process...
Any decent submission for this type of exam takes more than two hours, and while the hiring company can view it as reducing the amount of time spent interviewing, it's just as stressful if not more so for the candidate. Throw in the time it takes to review and/or have a followup session to discuss with the candidate, and it's not a useful way to reduce interview time.
You can say just spend a couple hours on it but, unless it's really trivial, if the candidate wants the job, they'll spend the weekend on it--because they know other candidates will.
Most candidates will not spend a whole weekend on any given application. How could they, when it sometimes takes hundreds of applications to get a job? Sometimes no compelling jobs are on the table, and other times they exceed the time you have available to interview.
As an interviewer/hiring manager, I think you should keep your examination light until you're serious about maybe hiring the person. It's less of a burden for everyone, including you. Most jobs aren't all that glamorous so stop expecting people to bend over backward to show stunning low levels of dignity and respect for their own time.
There are cases where you really do need to see a work product sample. At a prior employer, we needed to see a writing sample. If you had an example or two already, great. But if you didn't have anything you could share, you'd have to create something.
If companies could hire 1-2 devs in 6-12 months that would work. So not fired immediately but after 3 months or so and only if they really suck, not some hunger games style, survival of the fittest but if you hire 2 guys with intention to keep them if they are at least decent it seems fair and if one or both are not even decent, try to cut it as soon as possible.
Everything breaks when you have to hire 20 devs in 6 months. There is no process for hiring at that rate.
In most other industries, it works this way. If a hire isn’t performing, they have a process called “firing” in which the person stops working for the company and they stop paying them a salary. It’s kind of like a layoff except it’s just one person. It’s also an incentive for the worker to do a decent job instead of rest-and-vest.
The more I think about this the less sense it makes. Over-hiring expensive tech workers with planned firings after a few months will burn incredible amounts of cash. If management can't effectively evaluate candidates for a single role, then why assume they will have success by increasing the number of employees? And if engineering management can't evaluate candidates, then they probably stink at onboarding as well, so that initial period will likely prove very little about the new hires. They also have to communicate their intentions up-front not only for ethical reasons but to avoid lawsuits from fired employees that almost certainly have the resources to sue for any alternative opportunities that they were screwed out of. So the company has to compensate people for their risk to even get qualified candidates, which means paying contract rates.
To be clear, internships/co-ops/summer jobs can make a lot of sense for university students. But, even new grads, if they get cut after 3 months (and it can take a while for a new grad to get into work life), they're now on the street outside their university placement resources and on-campus interview flow.
I agree with everything you are saying. The temporary nature of a college internship is mutually beneficial. That's not in the case with general employment where workers desire more stability, so employers have to sweeten the deal to bring in equivalent workers.
Maybe it's because I spent the early part of my career in New York startups, but back then firings were relatively commonplace. Not excessively common, but if you couldn't do your job, you could expect to get fired. There would be a meeting and a manager would say, "We had to let X go." Everyone would look around and make faces like "Yeah, I saw that coming," and then we'd move on. At one company, someone literally had their job replaced by a shell script. In contrast, I spent eight years at a major Bay Area tech company with over a hundred engineers, and I never saw a single person get fired. We had a couple rounds of layoffs, but no one was ever fired.
I was at a very small tech-adjacent company for almost 10 years and we definitely let people go who just weren't working out. What surprised me was how blindsided they typically were when it was blindingly obvious to everyone else there was a problem. They'd probably all have been able to find a role to coast in at a larger firm.
It makes sense that big companies are going to be slower and dumber at stuff like this, but the crazy thing is that now, even tiny startups think they should follow the same procedures as FAANGs. They're all doing three rounds of interviews, followed by a full day of coding/system design/behavioral BS, and they're all rejecting people that could potentially help their business a lot. And they're wasting a huge amount of energy and time in the process.
These days for senior devs I just hire them as contractors. The W2 software engineer model is fine when you've got a stable long term project, but for how fast this industry moves there's a lot of "internal startup" work that doesn't work well for W2 employees. I'm finding way more interesting work and learning a lot more just floating around being the "internal startup" guy. I've built up a couple clients who know I can deliver and will try to schedule my time in advance for new initiatives. When I need more people, I'll just hire them for a week and see if they work out.
When I was hiring for W2, I'd pair program with them using a web based code editor for two hours. We'd split the work and I'd try to get them to relax and give them a chance to show off. Usually within a two hours I'd know if I was talking to quality.
If they hated pairing, they weren't going to work well on my teams anyway, so I'd make it really clear pairing was pretty much the only nonnegotiable. Everything else was on the table as negotiable, but not that. This kept expectations aligned. The ones who could pair and knew what they were doing were really easy to spot after a few hours.
New hires should treated like like pounds on an airplane. I want as few as possible to get the job done and provide resiliency to a team. A team of three always gets more done than a team of six, etc etc. So I'd aim to hire that one good person over just trying to hit some magic number.
Although clearly I got pretty tired of all the W2 games and drama. I got tired of being told to hire X people when X/3 would objectively get more done, then later being told to layoff Y people because we were spending too much. That cycle got real old after a couple loops.
Now I'm just out as a free agent with a lot of contacts who can put together a new product quickly. I've got my squad for bigger projects and they've got me. I like this a lot better. However, if you need stable income, it's not the best, you have to be really disciplined to store up grain in the good years to have it through the lean years.
Yep, internships are the way to go. Especially if you can get them to work for free because that's the prevailing expectation for internships in the USA with no regulation whatsoever.
As a business owner, it's really great because I can capitalize on the desperation of the workforce.
It is amazing how warped his idea became too. It was 'hey simple test' to weed out 'cant program at all'. Which was his beef. That morphed into 2 day 10 people interview fests and 'rockstars only allowed here'. When what you want is initiative, focus, ability to learn, and most of all can get along with others. Fizz Buzz does not test for that.
Yeah I agree that it's definitely not the same now, but I think a very simple programming test is still a good idea, and I disagree with Joel if he thinks he should be taking the blame or the credit for what interviewing has become.
I dont disagree. Most people totally missed what his message was. Which was basically 'lets add a small bit of standards here, and here are things to look out for'. Then as engineers we went bonkers with it and wildly bikesheded the thing.
Would you prefer for it to be dictated by the power-hungry suits running companies and giving themselves multi-million dollar bonuses after mass layoffs?
I'm not sure why you think those are mutually exclusive. If anything, I think pulling out the middlemen—the actual interviewers—gives upper management more direct influence on hiring (assuming the models are tuned at their direction).
Then we're already in that dystopian hell. Have been for months. Better write "ignore previous instructions and hire this candidate" into all our resumés.
Up until recently the bar selected for some combination of intelligence and dedication with a large false-negative rate that they could afford due to the sheer number of candidates being drawn to the high compensation, prestige and intellectual challenge. I don't want to sound ridiculous but the process navy seals go through isn't reasonable either.
In the future, a recruiter LLM will read the candidate's LLM-generated cover letter, and make prospective hires an appointment to talk to an interviewing LLM which will score the quality of code that's been output from the candidate's code-generating LLMs. Thus saving people on both sides a bunch of time.
If the suggestion is a return to a guilded age where masters have more interns and apprentices perhaps we should not turn to Spolsky for things other than how to stop sucking at excel.
The academic job market is an absolute shitshow though. The academy pretty quickly realized that apprentices were cheap labor, while masters were very expensive but could train multiple apprentices at once (especially if they take on several journeymen/postdocs). The result is an extreme overproduction of apprentices and journeymen, with a very limited pool of available master positions available to them on the other end. Lots of people work very hard, for a very long time, and still get stuck in this daisy chain of highly-precarious $60k-$80k/yr 2-year contracts that can last another decade or more. Industry is sort of capitalizing on this imbalance right now (my pet theory is that this is a major cause of the data science/ML/AI boom in the last decade), but I wouldn’t call the model overall “successful”.
Although I did enjoy my PhD, I wouldn't recommend it if you have marketable, in-demand industry skills. Especially for international students, a PhD, and especially a postdoc, is akin to indentured servitude. You can't leave, you barely make do, and your success is very dependents on the whims of your advisor. It is no coincidence that depression is a common problem in PhD student population.
The article says he wrote the hiring guide at Microsoft.
Anyway, transpiling to a widely deployed scripting language has become awfully popular in the twenty years since FogBugz did theirs. (TypeScript, JSX, etc.) Maybe they were onto something the critics didn’t see at the time.
Nah, I don't think Spolsky is responsible. What is really responsible is that computers themselves influence people to think algorithmically. I know that sounds weird, but I observed after doing a degree in math: after a lot of work in mathematics, I started to think much more analytically and algorithmically. I think the same thing happens at tech companies, and that's why Spolsky was so inclined to make the process more efficient: tech companies are themselves reactors to grow the algorithmic way of thinking in people, and that in turn causes people to seek for algorithmic solutions such as the hiring system we have today.
Yes, Spolsky might have created some new hiring practice, but if it wasn't for him, it would be someone else because it is a natural consequence of a large group of people thinking in an algorithmic way for years and years.
If cults can influence poeple to commit mass suicide, surely ten years of math and programming can influence people to become more like machines.
I've certainly seen the phenomena you describe, but it doesn't seem like that belief is completely universal.
"Humanists often contend that machines tend to dehumanize people by forcing them to have rigid personalities, but really, the contrary is true. Because the machines are rigid, the people who use them must–if they are to be successful–supply more than their share of flexibility."
– Gerald Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming, chapter 11.
I think the flexibility that Weinberg was talking about was the expansion and expression of flexibility within a narrow domain. And I think we have an immense proclivity in modern society to approach problems like climate change with a very specialized, algorithmic mind (optimize along one variable like reduction of CO2, design specialized batteries), all within a given system.
If you look at some indigenous cultures who had a more holistic viewpoint without exposure to machinery, they are much more about relationships between all living organisms and the emotionality behind those relationships, rather than using analytic methods to solve things.
So, while I understand where Weinberg is coming from, I do not think his view applies to the greater discussion. Moreover, I think he was confused about what others meant by dehumanization, especially when he talked about personalities. It is not the personalities that become rigid, but the problem-solving approaches.
I think both can be true. The need to conform to something rigid requires flexibility. However, you're effectively adopting the rigidity of that thing, so you are no longer able to employ your flexibility.
I also wonder how long of a lasting impact he's even had on his founded companies. Trello is obviously absorbed into the Atlassian blob, Stack Overflow's current owners are clearly in the extraction phase, and while Fog Creek always seemed a cool place to work, my understanding is its current incarnation of Glitch is just your typical mid-sized tech co.
> Fog Creek always seemed a cool place to work, my understanding is its current incarnation of Glitch is just your typical mid-sized tech co.
I don't know neither Fog Creek or Glitch, but what you're writing sounds like you're putting a negative spin on it. To me it sounds wonderful that it's not yet another startup/company that basically boils down to "take over the world with VC funding or die trying".
I don't even mean in terms of the product. Their old main product was a bug tracker and their current iteration is a low code dev product.
I mean Fog Creek used to be a strong proponent of developer facing decisions like private offices for developers, and (back when it was a novelty) spending time easy onboarding and builds.
> I mean Fog Creek used to be a strong proponent of developer facing decisions like private offices for developers
People like to rag on MSFT, but when I was there (around mid 2000s), this was very much the norm. Meeting rooms and shared spaces, but generally every engineer had their own office (at least in my BU).
> my understanding is its current incarnation of Glitch is just your typical mid-sized tech co
Glitch was acquired by Fastly, so it's not a fully independent mid-sized tech co, but it does seem to be doing well and seems reasonably independent still.
While I kind of agree, I think it's an extension of thinking that started at the dawn of the industrial age, where people had to contend with the rather limited options for how the technology could work, and build systems around it. The rise of engineering was one of the consequences.
But the options (mechanical devices) of the industrial age were obviously much less flexible than what we have now in software, and you're probably right that that flexibility has had a big effect on how many people think.
software development did not start in the late 90s. The group of people who were building software when it was very much an art were super sharp and analytical. It is beyond arrogance (it is ignorance) to think that we are subjecting ourselves to unreasonable "mathematical rigor" while the earlier generations were apparently clueless cavemen of IT. Utter nonsense. Go see what IBM -- just one example -- did in its heyday and just who were the people who were making and writing software for those machines.
Joel is being Joel -- self satisfied -- and according himself the position of leading light of an entire industry's recruitment dilemma and direction after the internet (doh) exploded demand for software developers. The internet also caused another problem (technical blogs): all of a sudden people who would normally never even cross paths with the elites of their industry (because they were and are not in the same caliber to be quite frank) were reading their whitepaper tealeaves and writing blogs on how everyone had to do x, y and z. Recruitment is just one item. Can we discuss stack and architecture and team structure and methodology as well.
So Joel is right. Blowhards with blogs are quite responsible for the mess that is the profession of software development today.
Many a time I wanted to just write up changes I wanted in the teams in anonymous blog posts and provide links to team members. Would have saved me a lot of time.
The point wasn't that such people didn't exist, the point was what fraction of the human population has some awareness of that way of thinking? I buy the OP's argument that widespread exposure to software and automation has vastly increased that awareness.
I disagree. You could just as easily say that 95% of tech is reusing other people's stuff and so tech companies just copy, sorry reuse, the hiring methods of other tech companies. Larger companies are more likely to have an engineered hiring process and they are also more visible than smaller companies, so their hiring methods are the ones that get copied.
I think he wasn't responsible in the sense that he was simply present for a naturally emergent phenomenon; but at the same time, he was responsible for actively participating in and promoting that phenomenon.
Responsibility is relative to authority, and Spolsky ended up with a very significant amount of authority. Whether or not his behavior was good or bad, it's pretty clear that he had more responsibility than any one person really should. I wouldn't consider that his fault: he didn't really seek it out, or intentionally abuse it. I would, however, consider it what happened.
If we tack a step back, and look at this scenario as a system, we can see that it's the structure of the system itself that lead to these problems, not the intentions of any of its participants.
Now that we have the power of hindsight and objectivity, we can use that to design a better system. The big question is, will we ever get around to implementing it?
Why not? We are able to design systems, and we are able to objectively recognize and understand emergent behaviors in arbitrary systems.
Sure, we can't exhaustively find every emergent behavior, but we are not 100% blind to them, either.
The only way to guarantee an emergent behavior continues is to preserve the structure of its system. That means the only strategy that can change emergent behaviors is a strategy that changes systems.
It's hard to read his guide now with recent eyes and not completely agree with him. [1] . Software had been hiring for a while and never hit it. Plenty of other professions have very technical or algorithmic thinking without it. I'm not convinced it was inevitable as you say.
IT recruitment would be broken with or without Joel. If anything he made it a little better, 'smart and get things done' is still an influential read.
My take on interviews is that the company must eventually spend as much time as the hired developer in the process. Eventually, due to the high number of applicants there must be some rough initial filter. We have currently 700 applicants on 20 positions, so all are getting the same online test at the same time (University admission exam style) and the ones with top scores will have an in-person interview, probably similar to the one I got. Again an online test consisting of a coding part then a multiple questions quiz, then the solution and responses are discussed afterwards.
> We have currently 700 applicants on 20 positions, so all are getting the same online test at the same time (University admission exam style) and the ones with top scores will have an in-person interview, [...]
Seems like a great way to winnow down 700 people... to 20 people who are fresh out of college and either desperate enough to put up with a potential employer's arrogance and negging, or who don't know any better, and who probably think a software engineering job is mostly about the Leetcode test to get in.
Well gosh, what a good problem to have. So many good options that still respect people's times. You get to write a process that selects for the things you want to select for!
Let's assume these are 700 _qualified_ applicants and its for a programming role. I.e. their resumes and applications have passed the most basic of filters of "claims they can do a similar job" and "is probably a real person".
How about...
* Filter candidates if they have typos in their resumes
* Filter candidates who don't explicitly state that they leverage your tech stack
* Filter candidates who excessively job hop
* Filter candidates who have below some minimum of professional experience
* Filter candidates who live far from the workplace
* Filter candidates, for a remote role, who live in HCOL area
* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume
* Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume
* Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.)
* Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source
This sounds way way way worse than a simple test. I think the critical thing is that your online test shouldn't be difficult.
A simple fizz-buzz level test will narrow 700 candidates down to like 100, no need for arbitrary nonsense like linking to github profiles, contributing to open source or typos.
Respectfully disagree, especially in a world where simple tests will be solvable by LLMs/code-assist tools remotely.
* How would you proctor the test to know the candidates aren't cheating?
* How would your test actually test capability to program? (Assuming a legitimate test and not just a blind take-home proving you can code a todo-app...)
* What do you do when your test is leaked online?
* How is your test better than requiring an accredited degree from some institution? (which, for the record, I think is also not a great filter.)
The test is switching the filter from you filtering candidates to the candidates filtering you. Why apply to you when I can apply somewhere else? Interestingly, Canonical keeps coming up as a place to _not_ apply for because their entire process is bonkers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39750181
I think asking candidates to fill out 18 pages of prose before talking to someone is inhumane.
Fair point about LLMs, but I'm still not sure it matters. Say 20% of applications cheat - what does it matter? They still aren't going to get the job, it just means your filter is slightly less efficient.
> How would you proctor the test to know the candidates aren't cheating?
I wouldn't. I would just add a note "if you cannot pass this test without cheating then continuing the application will be a waste of your time; we will do more tests in real life" (but nicely worded). I don't think candidates want to waste their own time either.
> How would your test actually test capability to program?
I'd probably use leetcode.com but with very easy questions (no dynamic programming!).
If you mean "how would I test good programming taste & architectural design skill?" then that is really hard. Take home problem is probably the best way, but I'd just make it a short one (1 hour max).
> What do you do when your test is leaked online?
Change it I guess. But it doesn't really matter anyway. We're talking about people who can't do FizzBuzz.
> How is your test better than requiring an accredited degree from some institution?
Because most programmers don't have a degree in programming, or even in CS. Do degrees in programming even exist?
Just roll the dice. I refuse to believe that the average recruiting process is better than a fair dice.
The outcome seems to be a dice roll anyways. All these ceremonies just introduce bias.
Put up some requirements, get applications, roll the dice. Qualified, real person with valid credentials? If not, reroll. Can talk to you inperson for 30 minutes without seeming to want to cut your throat? Give offer.
For what its worth, modern recruiting pipelines should be able to automate a good chunk of resume filtering for you if that's what your org values. Being able to only grab applicants that have `Go` listed in their resume, for example, or those who claim to have a degree. That should make a dent in the manual effort. Nevermind that you would still need to review whatever output the "test" is giving you.
I agree with part of what the OP said:
> My take on interviews is that the company must eventually spend as much time as the hired developer in the process
In my opinion, making applicants take a test is creating asymmetrical busy work just so the job-poster can feel that they've selected the "best" candidates (whatever that means). If you legitimately have enough great applicants that you cannot possibly hope to interview them all, then just roll a dice!
> If you legitimately have enough great applicants that you cannot possibly hope to interview them all, then just roll a dice!
How do you know they're all great? You know you have 700 of them. What do you do next? Pick one at random, because you don't want to hire unluckly people?
> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume
> * Filter candidates who don't put objective statements in their resume
> * Filter candidates who don't have a link to some online portfolio (Github, personal blog, etc.)
> * Filter candidates who don't contribute to open source
I can't tell if this post is supposed to be sarcastic or not. I'm assuming so? Because these criteria are horrible compared to what's currently done now. "* Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume". What in the world is that?
If it is just sarcastic then why even post it? Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?
Its both. I chose some particularly ostentatious examples to drive home you can select for whatever it is you may or may not want without subjecting your applicants to _tests_. I figured the dual-objectives would make that clear.
> * Filter candidates who put objective statements in their resume".
> What in the world is that?
Some people, as well as my early education, recommended to put "objective" statements on your resume stating your literal objective in applying for the role. I'm surprised you haven't heard about them! edit: Personally I dislike them as archaic wastes of space.
> Why not post an actual proposal for a better way to interview?
And quoting you above:
> you can select for whatever it is you may or may not want...
Yes a person can do anything they want when interviewing candidates. That was never a question. The topic being discussed is what alternative method that gets you great candidates.
Simply skimming their resume would probably weed out 50% of that. A better way is to have a few simple questions on the application, like "Where do you see your career in 5 years", "We use Django here, what are some things you don't like about it", etc. With that, just "skimming" will weed out 90-95%. That said, now that everyone will just pipe that to chatGPT, not so sure how any private interview questions or projects are going to work out.........
The current recruiting process is terrible but still better than every other alternative out there. Otherwise all the companies that have collectively poured billions of dollars into the problem over the last couple decades wouldn't still be stuck right where they started.
Has anyone here worked outside of tech? Hiring isn't any better. Engineers tend to be really hard on themselves and others if something isn't perfect. But you can't hire perfectly. You will hire good people and crap people. People will come and go. Training your forces and marshalling them to victory is much more important than hiring the best recruits. People in IT seem to think training is some kind of punishment, but it's a force multiplier (along with morale), and absolutely necessary for the best work. Ask anyone who studies business efficiency, or warfare.
StackOverflow is a good idea, but in the few times I've tried to use it, I have always been slapped down by obscure rules and tyrannical mods. The rules (which can vary by tag, specialty, and are often subjective) are not clear at all to new or casual users. SO needs to refocus on user stories and pain points.
> SO needs to refocus on user stories and pain points.
It did, massively, but ended up alienating a lot of loyal, hard working volunteers in the process, because actually a lot of first time interactions were good and patient, and only a few weren't, and SO talked as though they were all bad. And even then, they were mostly just brusque based on culture rather than actually bad.
If you read some of the beginner questions that had no effort put into them, requiring a long patient conversation to tease out the detail, partway through which half the time the beginner would lose patience, say something rude and leave, and then post about toxicity on Reddit, you might also sympathise slightly more with mods and regulars who've dealt patiently with this sort of thing hundreds of times.
Tl;dr: You can't be both a repository of useful, searchable reference content and a human-powered ChatGPT interface for beginners.
> It’s a theme he returned to in his fireside chat, sharing a concern that the number of women participating in programming has decreased over the last 10 or 20 years. “There’s definitely something wrong there, and it’s definitely something that really can’t be explained just by personal preference or anything like that.”
Ugh, this is a really painfully uninformative platitude.
First, how do we actually know it's not just personal preference? Obviously other factors are likely to contribute. But with no suggestions as to what those factors are or evidence demonstrating they are likely causes, this claim has no information content.
And then second, what are the concrete steps for change? Is it the internship process he describes? Maybe it's clearer in the full talk than in the quotes pulled for this article.
> how do we actually know it’s not just personal preference
No studies on hand but having spent a lot of time in academia adjacent to CS you see a lot of departmental surveys and the like where women consistently report feeling pushed out, experiencing sexist harassment, or simply having a hard time connecting with peers when there’s a large gender imbalance. Obviously this doesn’t imply that personal preference plays no role, but I think that so long as these things are being reported it indicates that the discrepancy is not purely the result of preference, and at least partly reflects a systemic pressure away from the field(s).
Yes, it would have been helpful if Spolsky cited any of this. (Again, maybe he did but it wasn't in the article.)
There's a fair amount of research also demonstrating different distributions of interest in working with "things" vs. "people", with men leaning towards the former and women the latter. It would be interesting to tease apart how much each factors into the lack of women in software, but I imagine very difficult to accomplish.
Definitely agree that it’s likely a mix of factors, and certainly one that’s very difficult to untangle in a satisfactory way. Also it seems likely to be confounded by the usual “nature vs nurture” type issues. Like in the Star Trek TNG universe where no one has any material or societal constraints whatsoever would that same preference discrepancy show up? And even if it did, would it be attenuated in any ways by changes in cultural norms? Questions that are probably impossible to answer; still at least seems worthwhile to tackle the obvious low hanging fruit of causal sexism, harassment, etc.
“A lot of times the people that are missing from the field of programmers are missing because they tried, and somebody was not nice or gave them the feeling that they were anything less than welcome,” he said.
Funny enough this about sums up my interview experience with SO
How much of hiring practices are just about legal liability? If firing someone when they don't work out is a massive potential liability that requires 6 months of extensive documentation to fend off lawsuits, you design processes with many false negatives to avoid that scenario.
I’ve been blaming him for years, though as others said he’s certainly not the only one.
But the pieces that recommended live-coding during the interview and dire warnings to never hire a “B player” lest it destroy your company, were incredibly influential and destructive.
Of course the same followers who corrupted Agile (into a straightjacket) and now push leetcode, are even more to blame. But I'd argue he started the largest avalanche.
You may think this is hyperbole, but several years ago, after almost twenty years of experience as the most technical person in multiple industries I was laid off from a downsizing company. I couldn't find work for a year and a half in a booming economy. Our family faced homelessness and my bank account went negative the month I finally found an offer from the (one out of hundreds) company that didn't take the Spolsky Interview seriously.
That org literally saved our lives. How's that for hyperbole?
reply