He who submits a resume has already lost(residentcontrarian.com)
residentcontrarian.com
He who submits a resume has already lost
https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/he-who-submits-a-resume-has-already
224 comments
This attitude is well suited to an employers market in which you need to profess your love for the job and company as part of your job application. A pity the market has turned back this direction. It’s usually accompanied by an employer “looking for someone who loves the opportunity enough to go through our 12 week, 9 interview, 1 whiteboard, 2 coding test process which usually ends in veto and ghosting”.
Like telling a girl/guy you love them before first date.
Like telling a girl/guy you love them before first date.
Fun fact: I'm currently through an interview process that has lasted 11 weeks so far, including 12 discussions, 1 system design, 2 coding, 3 behavioral. The employer has informed me several times that they intend to make an offer and that my salary expectations are within their range... but they've been postponing the offer for 3 weeks now and clarified yesterday that they want me to profess that I'm more interested in them than in any other offer I have or might receive before they make an offer.
FWIW, it's a fairly large tech company that pretty much everyone on HN has heard of.
FWIW, it's a fairly large tech company that pretty much everyone on HN has heard of.
As someone who has been in the other side of the table , I'm totally confident that they have another candidate and are dragging until they confirm their acceptance or rejection .
That, or there was 'something' that made them not pull the trigger with you, and they are waiting to interview more candidates.
I'll suggest to keep looking elsewhere,FAST, even if you get another shitty offer, you then can send them an "ultimatum" telling them about your other shitty offer.
You don't have to accept the other shitty offer.
That, or there was 'something' that made them not pull the trigger with you, and they are waiting to interview more candidates.
I'll suggest to keep looking elsewhere,FAST, even if you get another shitty offer, you then can send them an "ultimatum" telling them about your other shitty offer.
You don't have to accept the other shitty offer.
I'd have called time a long time ago. It sounds like you're their fallback and they've been stringing you along (the way I read it). I don't know what more they'd want beyond you saying you'll accept their job offer for the terms already discussed. I'd time limit it as you have already wasted enough time with them. 12 discussions? I don't think so.
You have the right to confirm likely salary offer after interview number two.
Unfortunately there’s a really strange thing that happens in very long interview processes, is the employer starts to think something is wrong because the process has taken so long, despite the process being driven by them.
Anyhow, to your situation…. It is now an employers market and some of them need to feel loved.
So you should effusively tell them that you love the company and love the job.
Unfortunately there’s a really strange thing that happens in very long interview processes, is the employer starts to think something is wrong because the process has taken so long, despite the process being driven by them.
Anyhow, to your situation…. It is now an employers market and some of them need to feel loved.
So you should effusively tell them that you love the company and love the job.
Well, I pretty much told them that 2 weeks ago. If they want more than that... I'm not sure what else I can do. Right now, I'm actually starting to ponder whether I should tell them "no", because it starts to feel like a red flag.
Ghost them and move on. Why waste your time?
I'll probably send a thank you note rather than ghosting them outright, but this has become the plan as of yesterday.
One thing I have learned from Krav Maga, you don't act passive or submissive unless you are about to kick someone in the groin and smash them in the face.
Well, if there is one bias I've confirmed from Aikido, you don't pick a fight when it's just as simple not to :)
Probably a “no thanks” email is enough in this case.
> Why waste your time?
Personally I don't feel great contributing to the trend of ghosting everyone, and sending a thank you note adds a sense of closure and completion.
Personally I don't feel great contributing to the trend of ghosting everyone, and sending a thank you note adds a sense of closure and completion.
Friends tell me I'm losing out, but I never even apply to positions that do not include a salary (range).
The idea of putting in hours, or days, of effort only to learn the salary is minimal just seems like waste of time for everyone.
Weeks? That's just stringing you along, and by the point I'd wonder if they're even intending to hire anyone.
The idea of putting in hours, or days, of effort only to learn the salary is minimal just seems like waste of time for everyone.
Weeks? That's just stringing you along, and by the point I'd wonder if they're even intending to hire anyone.
You are missing out though as putting job ads together isn't an exact science. You are looking for somebody with certain skills but often somebody with a lot of experience and a higher level comes along who would make an excellent addition to the team. In that case the hiring manager will redefine the role to accommodate the individual. It's happened to me so it's real.
Gather all job offers worthy of your application. List them on a document with: company name, short description, link to the offer, a link to an archived copy (sorted by interestingness, they go at the top: published 15 weeks ago)
Put a table under each where each row represents your steps though their process, columns are mostly time stamps, offer published, time elapsed since previous step, time since publication. When you've added it to the document, when you've applied, when they responded, when the interview was (if any) Final row (if any) should describe why you rejected the offer.
If you just didn't get hired the entry may be removed.
Put a version number on the document and a pass-worded link to the most recent version.
IOW a detailed survey of the landscape.
Put a table under each where each row represents your steps though their process, columns are mostly time stamps, offer published, time elapsed since previous step, time since publication. When you've added it to the document, when you've applied, when they responded, when the interview was (if any) Final row (if any) should describe why you rejected the offer.
If you just didn't get hired the entry may be removed.
Put a version number on the document and a pass-worded link to the most recent version.
IOW a detailed survey of the landscape.
Yep, especially since the answer the the first question ("1. Why do you want to take this role?") is usually:
"you have work to do, and have the money, I can do the work, and want the money"
"you have work to do, and have the money, I can do the work, and want the money"
If I truly loved your vision or product or something or believed in it, I probably would start my own competition. If I want to invest in it why not go all in.
But I don't. So it is a transaction and you are one in hundreds of options I have over years. And you should also treat it like that.
But I don't. So it is a transaction and you are one in hundreds of options I have over years. And you should also treat it like that.
Isn't there some healthy middle ground? I find some domains more interesting than others, I prefer some technical aspects over others. Some projects make more sense to me, or at least make me feel better.
Not enough to start my own company, but enough that the options leaning towards those will have the nod. You can be engaged without dedicating your life to it.
Not enough to start my own company, but enough that the options leaning towards those will have the nod. You can be engaged without dedicating your life to it.
I think it is more question that if a startup ask for passion and believe in their marketing. And one really had that, would it not be better to drive it yourself?
For those with not that strong convictions. Picking up reasonably interesting roles and fields where they have some skill coverage is entirely reasonable way to do things. Go for roles and companies you can be content with.
For those with not that strong convictions. Picking up reasonably interesting roles and fields where they have some skill coverage is entirely reasonable way to do things. Go for roles and companies you can be content with.
not everyone who believes in a business has the resources or the will, or even the skill to do that. also, if i believe in a business, that doesn't mean it makes sense to compete with them.
to give an example, i really love what valve is doing for gaming on linux. i would love to work for them. are you suggesting that i should start my own gaming company?
if i really like a company, i want to see that company succeed, not start another.
also, for myself, i really don't want to work for a company whose business i don't believe in. i would, if it was the only option, but if i have a choice then i prefer to work for a company whose business goals and practices i can agree with.
with startups in particular, there is also the issue that, if i don't believe in their business, that means i won't believe that they will be successful and then it doesn't make sense to work there.
to give an example, i really love what valve is doing for gaming on linux. i would love to work for them. are you suggesting that i should start my own gaming company?
if i really like a company, i want to see that company succeed, not start another.
also, for myself, i really don't want to work for a company whose business i don't believe in. i would, if it was the only option, but if i have a choice then i prefer to work for a company whose business goals and practices i can agree with.
with startups in particular, there is also the issue that, if i don't believe in their business, that means i won't believe that they will be successful and then it doesn't make sense to work there.
Why would you believe in a company? It's not God or your wife.
This. I have been in enough family businesses and startups to know that there is nothing to believe in. Upper management just thinks you're adorable. Middleanagemwnt thinks you need to eat shit, like them.
On one level, it's more enjoyable to do work that's aligned with your values. That gives you "self-actualization" points in the ol' pyramid.
But on another level, either because you're getting equity, or because you'd like to stay employed for a while, "believing" in the company is a shorthand for saying you think that the company is going to succeed, so that your equity is worth more, or so that you don't find yourself out of a job on someone else's schedule.
But on another level, either because you're getting equity, or because you'd like to stay employed for a while, "believing" in the company is a shorthand for saying you think that the company is going to succeed, so that your equity is worth more, or so that you don't find yourself out of a job on someone else's schedule.
... or mine, I need the medical benefits because I have a family member that needs the medical benefits.
If it were not for the way to get medical benefits via employment, I would pursue a passion versus sit in front of a keyboard and type things up that will not exist in 6 months.
If it were not for the way to get medical benefits via employment, I would pursue a passion versus sit in front of a keyboard and type things up that will not exist in 6 months.
True, but among the organizations that have work and money you can do to get the money, some seem to have aims or products or work in domains that align better with your views on the world than other organizations. In the context of job-getting, money as an extrinsic motivator is a given. Parts of a candidate's motivation that are more towards intrinsic might be relevant.
Maybe with the population of this site this is more true than the most, but I'd still consider it a minority, even here.
I doubt many plumbers cite a love of modern world development, when they get hired for fixing toilets, or that people assembling washing machines have a passion for clean clothes for other people... or even people working for google don't really have that much passion for collecting other peoples personal data and exploiting it to show ads.
I doubt many plumbers cite a love of modern world development, when they get hired for fixing toilets, or that people assembling washing machines have a passion for clean clothes for other people... or even people working for google don't really have that much passion for collecting other peoples personal data and exploiting it to show ads.
No, but they might like the sort of projects the organization does with respect to complexity, or that they mostly serve governmental buildings, or that they work in the community they're part of, etc. In the end, you have to make a choice between organizations to work for, and usually they all pay more or less the same. So, what's then the deciding factor?
By the way, this definitely doesn't mean to glorify an organization and what they're doing. Far from it. They're just in it for continued existence and making some money, I suppose. But it is nice if an organization has some social utility, as compared to, say, sell advertisements for crap no-one needs. And I think, if that's important to you, you can refer to that when you're applying for a job.
Of course, if you're working in a field where there's much more candidates than jobs, this is pretty meaningless because you have to take whatever comes your way.
By the way, this definitely doesn't mean to glorify an organization and what they're doing. Far from it. They're just in it for continued existence and making some money, I suppose. But it is nice if an organization has some social utility, as compared to, say, sell advertisements for crap no-one needs. And I think, if that's important to you, you can refer to that when you're applying for a job.
Of course, if you're working in a field where there's much more candidates than jobs, this is pretty meaningless because you have to take whatever comes your way.
indeed this.
there is a difference between the choice of profession and the choice of company after learning the profession.
above we were discussion which tech company to work for, because most of us here are in tech. but tech companies have a wide variety of business goals and practices.
plumbers not so much. they do plumbing. they all have the same business goal, the differences are where they operate and how nice the coworkers are and the work conditions and pay.
for a tech company it makes sense to ask, do i like their product, independent of the job i'll be doing there. for a plumber not really.
there is a difference between the choice of profession and the choice of company after learning the profession.
above we were discussion which tech company to work for, because most of us here are in tech. but tech companies have a wide variety of business goals and practices.
plumbers not so much. they do plumbing. they all have the same business goal, the differences are where they operate and how nice the coworkers are and the work conditions and pay.
for a tech company it makes sense to ask, do i like their product, independent of the job i'll be doing there. for a plumber not really.
Yeah, and all of those have a .org on their domain.
I saw a recent interview with the director of the world food bank. So jealous.
I saw a recent interview with the director of the world food bank. So jealous.
"I've always had a passion for frozen yogurt."
- Dave Chappelle
- Dave Chappelle
I get your point. But when you go through hundreds of applications for a single role, the ones with a cover letter do stand out. Not that I would only hire if you had a cover letter, but it still stands out.
One hand folks complain about automatic scanning and rejection based on just the CVs and here we are complaining about the one instrument, a job seeker has, to express interest in the company.
To go with your date analogy, a cover letter might not need to be a love declaration, but maybe a message that looked at the other’s profile rather than just “what’s up”.
One hand folks complain about automatic scanning and rejection based on just the CVs and here we are complaining about the one instrument, a job seeker has, to express interest in the company.
To go with your date analogy, a cover letter might not need to be a love declaration, but maybe a message that looked at the other’s profile rather than just “what’s up”.
It’s not the cover letter that’s really the problem here.
It’s the cult like exuberance that seems to be demands by GP and sibling comments.
It’s the cult like exuberance that seems to be demands by GP and sibling comments.
I didn't see any cult like exuberance. I used to hire and the "cover letter" criteria I had was basically looking for some hint they were deliberately applying for this job because it interested them. That's what I get from the OP. It's not about looking for someone who's pretending they've found their life's passion. It's about preferring people who (hopefully honestly) indicate this would be something they'd want to do because of some fit between them and the job. That's not a burdensome, not cultish requirement.
As an aside, I saw a cool job not long ago where they wanted your application email to have the subject line "$demonym reporting for duty", where $demonym is the cutesy name, like metamate that employees were supposed to call themselves. That is cultish, and puts me off applying way more than being asked for an sentence on why I'm a fit for the job.
As an aside, I saw a cool job not long ago where they wanted your application email to have the subject line "$demonym reporting for duty", where $demonym is the cutesy name, like metamate that employees were supposed to call themselves. That is cultish, and puts me off applying way more than being asked for an sentence on why I'm a fit for the job.
Couldn't it be a simple test of whether the applicant had read the posting thoroughly? It's a quick filter to remove anyone who didn't manage to fulfill this no-effort criteria in their application.
A lot of applicants simply send their resumes to any position that is vaguely relevant, without diving into the details of the role.
A little bit like Van Halen's "Brown M&M clause": https://effectiviology.com/brown-mms/
A lot of applicants simply send their resumes to any position that is vaguely relevant, without diving into the details of the role.
A little bit like Van Halen's "Brown M&M clause": https://effectiviology.com/brown-mms/
Yes, they definitely helps. I posted some jobs on linkedin and got absolutely garbage applicants. So the next time I wrote "do not apply on LinkedIn, email cv to xxxx". It was unbelievable to see how I had exactly the same wave of useless applications come in via LinkedIn's automated process, which I got to summarily ignore, and got a way higher average quality sent by email.
> they were deliberately applying for this job because it interested them
If they sent the CV, they did deliberate apply for the job.
I always hated writing cover letters, always felt like the employer wanted me to do some groveling before I earned the right to be graced with an interview.
Good thing now I have ChatGPT for the rescue.
If they sent the CV, they did deliberate apply for the job.
I always hated writing cover letters, always felt like the employer wanted me to do some groveling before I earned the right to be graced with an interview.
Good thing now I have ChatGPT for the rescue.
I never made the connection before, but yes online dating apps are a LOT like interviewing for software jobs. In both cases, I am/was "rejected" a lot, but in both cases, wherever/whoever I ended up with, was very happy with me. I think most likely the conclusion to be drawn is that humans suck at evaluating other humans.
The job market works exactly like the dating market would if there were 1,000 available men for every 1 available woman. In other words… like online dating.
> I think most likely the conclusion to be drawn is that humans suck at evaluating other humans.
In these circumstances definitely. It's a tall ask to accurately evaluate someone romantically or professionally based on a profile/resume and a few hours of face time. I think unions have a good method of doing this actually: people no one wants to work with wash out.
In these circumstances definitely. It's a tall ask to accurately evaluate someone romantically or professionally based on a profile/resume and a few hours of face time. I think unions have a good method of doing this actually: people no one wants to work with wash out.
Most jobs out there are straight up boring. Due to the way simplistifi'er managers are structuring the system. It selects for accountable people, not responsible people. Even if the domain has something interesting in it.
The filtering starts with HR functionary demanding a love letter to enter the managers' dollhouse.
https://bitslap.it/blog/posts/playground-it.html#part-i---ma...
https://bitslap.it/blog/posts/playground-it.html#part-i---ma...
If you get hundreds of applications then they're scanned into a database and ones with the buzzwords are deleted. A cover letter isn't even consumed by anybody other than the trash as the hiring manager isn't opening the mail. That doesn't happen anymore.
i think the real move is to situate yourself in a relationship with the prospective employer where the resume and cover letter and interview and all are formalities done after you've already got the job, but that's a tough thing to just do in a hurry, like, say, if you just got shit-canned. maybe you'll do better with a cover letter, but it's still a cold-calling sales job, with success rates to match.
The only times I've ever sent a cover letter I was told "What cover letter?"
The automatic system separated it and nobody looked at it.
The automatic system separated it and nobody looked at it.
Not a bad analogy btw. Love at the first sight is very rare. What you could expect is a certain amount of interest - which could develop if all goes well. But expecting people to be madly in love with your company after reading a website is a bit megalomanic - or just selecting for people who are really good at faking.
I definitely read that as someone who wants people to praise them.
They didn't say anything remotely
ike that.
Hyperbole is not an argument.
Hyperbole is not an argument.
yeah, and back when it was a tight labor market, when employers were supposedly dying for anyone they could use, i don't recall the opposite attitude prevailing. of course, i'm not really in that scene anymore, so i could've missed it.
I understand where you're coming from, but see it differently.
This really is a filter. We don't want job applications from people who are looking for a job. We're looking for people who actually want to do work at WunderGraph.
We're the first to build a Backend for Frontend Framework, unifying the ideas of API Gateway, BFF and package manager. Our long term goal is to build the GitHub for APIs, a collaborative platform to enable true collaboration between API producers and API consumers.
Either you're excited about this as much as we are, or you just send a CV.
We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity to work together with a smart bunch of people on a very hard problem.
It's simply not enough to say "hi". It's fine if your focus is your private life and you really just need a paycheck. A lot of corporates will fight for you. On our end, we need to filter out people who really just want to fill a role to make ends meet.
It's really not about loving what we do. That misses the point. It's about transparency of our goals align.
This really is a filter. We don't want job applications from people who are looking for a job. We're looking for people who actually want to do work at WunderGraph.
We're the first to build a Backend for Frontend Framework, unifying the ideas of API Gateway, BFF and package manager. Our long term goal is to build the GitHub for APIs, a collaborative platform to enable true collaboration between API producers and API consumers.
Either you're excited about this as much as we are, or you just send a CV.
We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity to work together with a smart bunch of people on a very hard problem.
It's simply not enough to say "hi". It's fine if your focus is your private life and you really just need a paycheck. A lot of corporates will fight for you. On our end, we need to filter out people who really just want to fill a role to make ends meet.
It's really not about loving what we do. That misses the point. It's about transparency of our goals align.
> We don't want job applications from people who are looking for a job. We're looking for people who actually want to do work
> We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity
This gem right here sums up what an employers market means. Every employer thinks they are special and wants an employee who's entire life's journey was only a preparation for the singular great moment of meeting you and building your vision, all for the a great compensation package of 65k/year and dental.
But guess what: you are not special, you are just a workplace and you compete in the marketplace for talent just like everybody else. For economic reasons that have nothing to do with you, you have more negotiating power for a limited time. That is all.
> We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity
This gem right here sums up what an employers market means. Every employer thinks they are special and wants an employee who's entire life's journey was only a preparation for the singular great moment of meeting you and building your vision, all for the a great compensation package of 65k/year and dental.
But guess what: you are not special, you are just a workplace and you compete in the marketplace for talent just like everybody else. For economic reasons that have nothing to do with you, you have more negotiating power for a limited time. That is all.
> But guess what: you are not special, you are just a workplace and you compete in the marketplace for talent just like everybody else. For economic reasons that have nothing to do with you, you have more negotiating power for a limited time. That is all.
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to not want to hire people with this attitude. Just a few people with this attitude can completely ruin an early stage company.
And the same goes in the other direction: I don’t want to work for anybody who sees me as a commodity they’ve bought in a market. I’m sorry, but I am special: there is only one of me on this planet.
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to not want to hire people with this attitude. Just a few people with this attitude can completely ruin an early stage company.
And the same goes in the other direction: I don’t want to work for anybody who sees me as a commodity they’ve bought in a market. I’m sorry, but I am special: there is only one of me on this planet.
That's a fair retort, especially on HN. But I hope we agree an early stage startup is a very very particular organization that is looking for partners, not employees, because the efforts of each has a compounding impact on the capital gains of all.
So while it might be true for GP's company, it's not true for the vast number of available jobs. If you are not in the cap table (or have only unfavorable terms), then by definition you are something the company has bought on the market and that's exactly how the company is thinking about you - else the ownership situation would reflect it. It's a business, not a social club, you either own the capital or you are the capital. Expecting anything else in exchange for you unique snowflakiness is self-delusional and the road to abject bitterness, as many ex a googler and twitterer found out.
So while it might be true for GP's company, it's not true for the vast number of available jobs. If you are not in the cap table (or have only unfavorable terms), then by definition you are something the company has bought on the market and that's exactly how the company is thinking about you - else the ownership situation would reflect it. It's a business, not a social club, you either own the capital or you are the capital. Expecting anything else in exchange for you unique snowflakiness is self-delusional and the road to abject bitterness, as many ex a googler and twitterer found out.
> I’m sorry, but I am special: there is only one of me on this planet.
There may be only one person exactly like you, although with 9 billion people it remains to be proven. But you sure are replaceable by many others with approximately the same set of skills.
There may be only one person exactly like you, although with 9 billion people it remains to be proven. But you sure are replaceable by many others with approximately the same set of skills.
Sure. And my general attitude is that if my employer can replace me then they should, so I can do something more productive (where I will be harder to replace). And to state the obvious: when you run your work life like this for 20 years you get pretty hard to replace.
The graveyard is full of the previously irreplaceable.
"...20 years"
Ohh sorry, we can't hire you. It's a "culture fit" issue. (We aren't allowed to say it's an age filter! It's "culture"- we aren't ageist!)
"...20 years"
Ohh sorry, we can't hire you. It's a "culture fit" issue. (We aren't allowed to say it's an age filter! It's "culture"- we aren't ageist!)
The grave yards are full of irreplaceable people.
Look: It’s not that we disagree about how the world works, it’s that we give it a different emotional coloring. Yours sounds bitter and resentful to me.
Look: It’s not that we disagree about how the world works, it’s that we give it a different emotional coloring. Yours sounds bitter and resentful to me.
How did you infer the "early stage company" thing? That's an assumption.
If the hiring pool for this job is global, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect to hear from people that are uniquely suited to the role.
And it goes both ways. These days I pick a job based on whether the work is going to help me learn what I need to make progress on my side projects. If I was searching locally that would be an entirely unreasonable filter, but so far it's been win-win.
And it goes both ways. These days I pick a job based on whether the work is going to help me learn what I need to make progress on my side projects. If I was searching locally that would be an entirely unreasonable filter, but so far it's been win-win.
You are indirectly making a great case for requiring that applicants consider the company more that "just a job". If my coworkers ranted like that, I'd not have fun at my work and you'd be dragging morale down.
I spend 8-10 hours a day at my job. That's far more than with any of my friends and typically more than even with my spouse in the average week. My coworkers, at least a significant fraction, better be amazing. If somebody comes and basically says, dude, it's just a job, leave me alone, I leave them to their misery. If I am forced to work with them any significant amount of time, I quit an go work somewhere else where I can build meaningful connections with people around me. Cause let's face it, co-workers are a friends substitute in this day and age.
I spend 8-10 hours a day at my job. That's far more than with any of my friends and typically more than even with my spouse in the average week. My coworkers, at least a significant fraction, better be amazing. If somebody comes and basically says, dude, it's just a job, leave me alone, I leave them to their misery. If I am forced to work with them any significant amount of time, I quit an go work somewhere else where I can build meaningful connections with people around me. Cause let's face it, co-workers are a friends substitute in this day and age.
> dude, it's just a job, leave me alone, I leave them to their misery.
If you really believed what you were saying you wouldn’t have to rationalize it to yourself by claiming that people who don’t think like you must be miserable.
> Cause let's face it, co-workers are a friends substitute in this day and age.
That’s on you. If you’re using coworkers as a friends substitute it’s not surprising you get people who want you to leave them alone.
If you really believed what you were saying you wouldn’t have to rationalize it to yourself by claiming that people who don’t think like you must be miserable.
> Cause let's face it, co-workers are a friends substitute in this day and age.
That’s on you. If you’re using coworkers as a friends substitute it’s not surprising you get people who want you to leave them alone.
> We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity to work together with a smart bunch of people on a very hard problem.
So does nearly everybody else. I was never told by a recruiter they are looking for somebody to work on mind-numbingly simple things in the company of idiots.
So does nearly everybody else. I was never told by a recruiter they are looking for somebody to work on mind-numbingly simple things in the company of idiots.
> they are looking for somebody to work on mind-numbingly simple things in the company of idiots
That isn't always an inaccurate description.
That isn't always an inaccurate description.
> We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity to work together with a smart bunch of people on a very hard problem.
I think this can be a trap. I'm not saying that your company does this, but I've learned to be wary of this. We've all heard of game programmers who are in endless "crunch mode" for less salary than they can get elsewhere. They accept this precisely because they want the opportunity to work on something they love. But is it fair of the company to abuse people like that? Is it really the right choice to work at a place like that?
Again, I'm not saying your company is abusing anyone. But when I feel this sort of vibe coming from a company that I'm applying to and have no insider knowledge of, it makes me think there might be that sort of abuse going on, which makes me less likely to want to apply to the company.
I think this can be a trap. I'm not saying that your company does this, but I've learned to be wary of this. We've all heard of game programmers who are in endless "crunch mode" for less salary than they can get elsewhere. They accept this precisely because they want the opportunity to work on something they love. But is it fair of the company to abuse people like that? Is it really the right choice to work at a place like that?
Again, I'm not saying your company is abusing anyone. But when I feel this sort of vibe coming from a company that I'm applying to and have no insider knowledge of, it makes me think there might be that sort of abuse going on, which makes me less likely to want to apply to the company.
>Either you're excited about this as much as we are, or you just send a CV.
[...]
>It's really not about loving what we do.
You do realize your contradicting yourself right?
Honestly, young wide-eyed new-grad me (which I bet is your target hiring demographic) would have totally bought into your baloney of "making the world a better place through minimal message oriented transport layers"[1], but as a gray beard I'd really be happy to be filtered out of your resume screening, as it reeks of cargo cult BS. I'm paid to do a job, not to join a cult and make that my life and working identity.
I apreciate your honesty though and I hope more companies do this so I can easily avoid them and save us both the time.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETi_UpG8D_k
[...]
>It's really not about loving what we do.
You do realize your contradicting yourself right?
Honestly, young wide-eyed new-grad me (which I bet is your target hiring demographic) would have totally bought into your baloney of "making the world a better place through minimal message oriented transport layers"[1], but as a gray beard I'd really be happy to be filtered out of your resume screening, as it reeks of cargo cult BS. I'm paid to do a job, not to join a cult and make that my life and working identity.
I apreciate your honesty though and I hope more companies do this so I can easily avoid them and save us both the time.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETi_UpG8D_k
I don't have a beard but I'm definitely gray.
It might be about confusing passion for the company with passion for the type of work that is part of what the company needs to be carried out as one and the same.
If those things were clearly separated in the attitude of companies when looking to hire maybe people would be more willing to help both the company and in turn themselves succeed.
Otherwise, it's a bit like professing your unconditioned love before you know what you've bargained for, and that seems backwards.
It might be about confusing passion for the company with passion for the type of work that is part of what the company needs to be carried out as one and the same.
If those things were clearly separated in the attitude of companies when looking to hire maybe people would be more willing to help both the company and in turn themselves succeed.
Otherwise, it's a bit like professing your unconditioned love before you know what you've bargained for, and that seems backwards.
I'm not in your field, but I read it as such from the get-go and I thought, "Yeah I know what this person is talking about – basically, not seeking someone who lays it on too thick about being in love with the company (or even the specific software/ work), but someone who reads the job description, and is fairly assured they are very capable of doing the work, and wants to do the work because it's interesting to them."
It didn't sound to me like you're asking someone to be a zealot, sycophant, brown-noser, or some kinda corporate drone who drinks the kool-aid and wears the company swag. But maybe I'm misreading?
I say this because I'm fairly niche in my skillset for animation and design, and I only really reach out to studios/ agencies for this very specific skillset, and will turn down jobs (or refer others who might be a better fit) where it's better suited for a generalist or outside of my range. Like, I like doing work within my niche, but it's not my everything or even my core identity.
Doesn't sound like you're asking potential candidates to profess their undying devotion and pile on gratitude. That's just my take. Felt like people might have been reading your comments in a slightly exaggerated interpretation and it could use some other perspectives.
It didn't sound to me like you're asking someone to be a zealot, sycophant, brown-noser, or some kinda corporate drone who drinks the kool-aid and wears the company swag. But maybe I'm misreading?
I say this because I'm fairly niche in my skillset for animation and design, and I only really reach out to studios/ agencies for this very specific skillset, and will turn down jobs (or refer others who might be a better fit) where it's better suited for a generalist or outside of my range. Like, I like doing work within my niche, but it's not my everything or even my core identity.
Doesn't sound like you're asking potential candidates to profess their undying devotion and pile on gratitude. That's just my take. Felt like people might have been reading your comments in a slightly exaggerated interpretation and it could use some other perspectives.
That is the problem with pitches like this, they sound pretty good, till you have read a ton of these and worked with a few companies like this and have been burnt by them.
I guess this highlights the problem with the whole recruitment space. This company put out the equivalent of a bad generic resume while complaining about potential employees putting out bad generic resumes.
I guess this highlights the problem with the whole recruitment space. This company put out the equivalent of a bad generic resume while complaining about potential employees putting out bad generic resumes.
You've got this exactly right. We're not your family. We are an employer. I think we offer a special opportunity. We give our employees a lot of freedom to structure their work day. There's no office, it's all remote.
What we're really just looking for is a healthy mix of passion and experience in the field. I believe that people do their best work when it's easy for them to wake up in the morning, they have low stress, they like their colleagues and don't hate the stuff they are working on. Even better if you're passionate about the work you're doing. That gives you a lot of energy to actually perform the work, and for us we're getting great results. This makes our company more valuable, we get more customers and revenue. We can increase your salary and you live a good life. Everybody wins, no?
So people should not try to read something into what I wrote above that's simply not there.
Tell my why you want to work at WunderGraph. Tell my why you think you'd perform good work. That's all.
Please don't write a cover letter. Keep it simple. The best of the best can say a lot with few words.
What we're really just looking for is a healthy mix of passion and experience in the field. I believe that people do their best work when it's easy for them to wake up in the morning, they have low stress, they like their colleagues and don't hate the stuff they are working on. Even better if you're passionate about the work you're doing. That gives you a lot of energy to actually perform the work, and for us we're getting great results. This makes our company more valuable, we get more customers and revenue. We can increase your salary and you live a good life. Everybody wins, no?
So people should not try to read something into what I wrote above that's simply not there.
Tell my why you want to work at WunderGraph. Tell my why you think you'd perform good work. That's all.
Please don't write a cover letter. Keep it simple. The best of the best can say a lot with few words.
Is this from Chatgpt? It sounds like generic startup pablum. "We're not like other companies," proceeds to sound like every company.
I don't see the issue. Why change a formula that is known to work? How is anyone to know if it's an honest description and their attitude is genuine? That's what reputation is for. Reputation is most valuable in my opinion and that goes for both potential employer and employee. If it's not available proxies may give some indication, or character evaluation by in person meeting. Does the pitch align with how the other side comes across? It's not a 100% guarantee. The rest is risk, which we can't be without.
The cynical truth is that no one is that excited to work at Wundergraph. Once your revenue drops, you will make your staff redundant.
I am sure your employees love to to work with your other colleagues on an exciting problem, however, it is just a paycheck in the end.
I am sure your employees love to to work with your other colleagues on an exciting problem, however, it is just a paycheck in the end.
Couldn’t tell if this is satire. Love it.
The era of AI-written recruitment pitches has begun.
"begun the era of AI-written recruitment pitches has" FTFY
Yep. I've been following recruiter groups on LinkedIn, there are a number of prompts circulating for that purpose.
> We're not offering you a job. We offer you the opportunity to work together with a smart bunch of people on a very hard problem.
This is the reddest flag of all on any interview process for me. I discard all companies with this attitude.
Working for a company is not a privilege, it is merely an employment.
This is the reddest flag of all on any interview process for me. I discard all companies with this attitude.
Working for a company is not a privilege, it is merely an employment.
Wow you really drank the kool-aid.
[deleted]
You really have to say this first to anyone you give the 'advice' from your previous post
It's hilarious that you think people are thrilled to work for your company. You could have this attitude if you were running a non-profit or were a pioneer in something. Running a fancy CRUD app ain't that, chief.
And to answer your question in a way that 99% of your applicants would like to, but your high-horse approach is stopping them:
1. To make money so I can pay for rent
2. Because I have previous experience with the tools and technologies you're using
And to answer your question in a way that 99% of your applicants would like to, but your high-horse approach is stopping them:
1. To make money so I can pay for rent
2. Because I have previous experience with the tools and technologies you're using
Evidently you haven't read their landing page since it's definitely not a fancy CRUD app and as a developer of fancy CRUD apps, what they're doing does excite me (too bad I'm not looking for a job!).
And given that they're an early stage company (my company is as well), I have had employees who were working as a boring day job for the comp alone, vs those who do it out of genuine interest in the space, and it excites them. Both types of employees are useful to have, but the latter are far more indispensable to me. Given a choice between either type of candidate, the latter wins every time. The mindset has to be different between "big stable megacorp" and "scrappy startup".
And given that they're an early stage company (my company is as well), I have had employees who were working as a boring day job for the comp alone, vs those who do it out of genuine interest in the space, and it excites them. Both types of employees are useful to have, but the latter are far more indispensable to me. Given a choice between either type of candidate, the latter wins every time. The mindset has to be different between "big stable megacorp" and "scrappy startup".
Be honest. The reason you take the second candidate is because they’re easier to exploit.
Jfc - I know a lot of founders personally and they’ll all say that in private. You’re online - on an anonymous forum. You’re not at risk for saying something that we all know. Stop lying.
Jfc - I know a lot of founders personally and they’ll all say that in private. You’re online - on an anonymous forum. You’re not at risk for saying something that we all know. Stop lying.
Hmm, so let's say you are hiring a guy to build you a fence. One guy keeps talking about all the potential designs and tradeoffs and can show you what he did with each one before, and the other guy is like, whatever man, it's a fence, I'm licensed - you are only hiring the first guy because he's "easier to exploit"?
If Person A wants to do X, and Person B wants somebody to do X for them, they agree on a fee, then I call it a win-win situation.
Wannabe-capitalists call it "exploitation" and pretend they're badasses comparable to the truly horrible kinds of exploitations that happened 100+ years ago (or in some other parts of the world they never been to).
Wannabe-capitalists call it "exploitation" and pretend they're badasses comparable to the truly horrible kinds of exploitations that happened 100+ years ago (or in some other parts of the world they never been to).
Some people mis-read this post as "showing" love to a company in the application. This is not what I meant, so I'd like to clarify this with a story.
Prior to starting WunderGraph, I've worked for a Full Lifecycle API Management company. It's was my best paying and most satisfying job before cutting my salary almost half to make my startup burn as little as possible.
I found this company because they had an open source codebase, written in Go. Coincidentally, I've built a library (https://github.com/wundergraph/graphql-go-tools) to build GraphQL API gateways, also written in go. At that time, they were only supporting REST. So I wrote them and offered the opportunity to add GraphQL to their API management capabilities. That was it, perfect match. Fast forward 2.5 years later and they have all sorts of powerful GraphQL API management capabilities. I think it was great for everyone involved.
So it's not about loving s company or a cult or anything. It's a about finding a good match between candidate and employer, and making it super easy for the employer to "spot" that from the very beginning.
Prior to starting WunderGraph, I've worked for a Full Lifecycle API Management company. It's was my best paying and most satisfying job before cutting my salary almost half to make my startup burn as little as possible.
I found this company because they had an open source codebase, written in Go. Coincidentally, I've built a library (https://github.com/wundergraph/graphql-go-tools) to build GraphQL API gateways, also written in go. At that time, they were only supporting REST. So I wrote them and offered the opportunity to add GraphQL to their API management capabilities. That was it, perfect match. Fast forward 2.5 years later and they have all sorts of powerful GraphQL API management capabilities. I think it was great for everyone involved.
So it's not about loving s company or a cult or anything. It's a about finding a good match between candidate and employer, and making it super easy for the employer to "spot" that from the very beginning.
> I've read through your website and documentation and are truly inspired by your vision
It's probably more practices like this, where the prospective employee has to enthusiastically profess subservient, slavish devotion to a company in order to be considered a viable candidate. You're writing GraphQL API glue. Everyone knows you're doing it to pay the mortgage. It's not a transcendental experience.
By contrary, the direction we were headed until recently made more sense. A company wanted some service provided. They'd look around and reach out to someone that likely was the best fit and contact them.
For example, if I was hiring a plumber, and some guy told me he was "inspired by my vision" and sought me out by reading everything on my website about my family, I would assume he had mental health issues and certainly not hire him.
It's probably more practices like this, where the prospective employee has to enthusiastically profess subservient, slavish devotion to a company in order to be considered a viable candidate. You're writing GraphQL API glue. Everyone knows you're doing it to pay the mortgage. It's not a transcendental experience.
By contrary, the direction we were headed until recently made more sense. A company wanted some service provided. They'd look around and reach out to someone that likely was the best fit and contact them.
For example, if I was hiring a plumber, and some guy told me he was "inspired by my vision" and sought me out by reading everything on my website about my family, I would assume he had mental health issues and certainly not hire him.
> It's probably more practices like this, where the prospective employee has to enthusiastically profess subservient, slavish devotion to a company in order to be considered a viable candidate.
Wait, why are you applying to a position that makes you feel this way? You feeling this way is a signal that the job is not for you.
Wait, why are you applying to a position that makes you feel this way? You feeling this way is a signal that the job is not for you.
As someone with GraphQL problems I am excited by GraphQL API glue lol.
As a jaded interviewer (and interviewee) in tech, I will say this works great if you have, for example, a face-to-face meeting and you can demonstrate your interest/passion for the role, but in cover letters or similar email exchanges, you already have people spitting out those fake statements, and it's tedious to distinguish the genuine interest from the fake "I am interested in <insert company name> because you <insert what company does> and believe I am a perfect fit for this job!", especially when you factor in non-native speakers and trying to distinguish between suspicious template text and not-so-great English skills. OP's post example #1 actually highlights how you can make that template text. The amount of application gaming you have to filter out is insane sometimes.
There has to be a better way. I really think TripleByte was on to something. No other profession has such a convoluted interviewing system. Imagine if doctors were expected to perform surgeries in X minutes in order to prove they were qualified for the job? Imagine if a lawyer had to prove they graduated from law school by defending a random felon in a court setting.
No other profession in existence expects candidates to dance on command the way we are expected to. Why do I have to prove over and over and over and over again that I can solve fizz-buzz or some other, similar brain teaser whose solution I more or less memorized. Why can't employers look at the plethora of code-related stuff with my name attacked to it that's out there on the Internet, ask me a few questions, and conclude that yep, he in fact knows what he is doing and probably did in fact work at these places he has listed on his resume.
No other profession in existence expects candidates to dance on command the way we are expected to. Why do I have to prove over and over and over and over again that I can solve fizz-buzz or some other, similar brain teaser whose solution I more or less memorized. Why can't employers look at the plethora of code-related stuff with my name attacked to it that's out there on the Internet, ask me a few questions, and conclude that yep, he in fact knows what he is doing and probably did in fact work at these places he has listed on his resume.
This comes up a lot and the reason doctors and lawyers don’t have to do their version of FizzBuzz is that they have strong, organized professional organizations managing their professions and providing a credential that assures some base-level skill. If we had the equivalent of the Bar Exam, we’d only have to take it once and then skip 75% of every interview.
We do. Didn't you see that I passed my Cloud Associate exam that I paid $300 for? I posted it to LinkedIn. /s
Jokes aside, any software engineer would be wise to get one or two cloud certs. Certifications are big in the IT realm (e.g. A+), and while they've historically been a joke in the SWE realm, virtually all SWE job postings I see these days want the candidate to have AWS or Azure experience, and a cert proves that. Yeah the AWS Cloud Practitioner cert is easy, but something like Azure's AZ-204 takes MANY hours of studying/real-world experience to earn.
... you mean any new software engineer that is starting out in the industry where everyone is fighting for that first role or second role.
For me personally, I have been in the industry forever. My battle scars are my certifications.
For me personally, I have been in the industry forever. My battle scars are my certifications.
No, I mean anyone. Again, I’m pretty anti-cert, but I make an exception for cloud
Well, I have a PhD, a pretty large github protofolio, a long list of realizations, code running on most tech devices on this planet (and also at least one device in space, as I've learnt recently), and I'm still asked to complete exercises that are only one step above FizzBuzz.
So... what you write may be true, but it seems to me that many employers are not ready to accept proofs of "base-level skill".
So... what you write may be true, but it seems to me that many employers are not ready to accept proofs of "base-level skill".
The problem has always been with companies. They'll pass on people like me, then whine about a tech labor shortage and want H1-B workers. I'm convinced I can do anything an H1-B visa-holder can*, but Google would have to be in dire straits before they even spend time interviewing me. Twitter is about there, I think, but it sounds like such an awful place to work now, so it's a catch 22.
*except be willing to work 50 or 60-hour weeks for 20% below market rate
*except be willing to work 50 or 60-hour weeks for 20% below market rate
And now triplebyte is no more which is unfortunate.
It died a year ago, all they did recently was make it Facebook Official.
Just to be clear since you replied to my comment, coding demonstrations are almost never a part of my interview process. That's not the part I was complaining about. Once I have narrowed down the potential applicants to a few, I do 15-30m interviews where we talk about things on their resume (e.g. "how did you solve X problem at Y job?") or list of skills (e.g. "how would you do task A with tech B?"), and their reason for applying. So far, I've only needed to have one round of interviews like that, because I usually get that one candidate that is best suited for the job.
The part I was complaining about is narrowing down the pool in the first place, the pre-screening, the part you mention:
> Why can't employers look at the plethora of code-related stuff with my name attacked to it that's out there on the Internet [...]
You wish (and I wish). The answer is because everything that can be gamed will eventually be. Each time I'm hiring it gets worse. Examples:
- GitHub profiles are still a decent filtering system, but people have learned how to game that with hello world-esque repositories in the area of interest. So you have to take a really close look at the actual content of the repositories themselves. Sometimes they have complicated file structures, lots of files, commits etc., then you have to actually look at the code and find it's just a "baby's first app" copied from some tutorial on how to game GitHub repos for the interview. They also plaster their GitHub bio with all these stickers and icons and programming languages copied from some templates on how to make your GitHub look attractive.
- Resumes are getting to be worse, a certain class of people say they worked for 5 different Fortune 500 companies, thankfully they all use the same template so you can filter them out. Others just keep lying over and over or embellishing their experience so hard it's basically a lie. If you're trained at it, you can filter them out because you notice patterns, similarities etc. but if you're hiring for something that you don't have experience in then it's getting harder and harder to distinguish. Sadly it's caused me to automatically assuming someone from certain countries are BSing it if their resume sets off my BS meter in any way.
- I used to use Discord communities related to something I was hiring for with a #jobs channel (for example, Flutter), but those "gamers" have figured that out too, and now when you post there, you get a bunch of BS applicants. You can sometimes tell because they don't really bother setting a profile pic or anything for their Discord, so you know they probably just joined to game the system.
All in all, when the application process is over, I am ending up feeling more and more irritated at the amount of time I have wasted filtering and filtering and filtering.
The part I was complaining about is narrowing down the pool in the first place, the pre-screening, the part you mention:
> Why can't employers look at the plethora of code-related stuff with my name attacked to it that's out there on the Internet [...]
You wish (and I wish). The answer is because everything that can be gamed will eventually be. Each time I'm hiring it gets worse. Examples:
- GitHub profiles are still a decent filtering system, but people have learned how to game that with hello world-esque repositories in the area of interest. So you have to take a really close look at the actual content of the repositories themselves. Sometimes they have complicated file structures, lots of files, commits etc., then you have to actually look at the code and find it's just a "baby's first app" copied from some tutorial on how to game GitHub repos for the interview. They also plaster their GitHub bio with all these stickers and icons and programming languages copied from some templates on how to make your GitHub look attractive.
- Resumes are getting to be worse, a certain class of people say they worked for 5 different Fortune 500 companies, thankfully they all use the same template so you can filter them out. Others just keep lying over and over or embellishing their experience so hard it's basically a lie. If you're trained at it, you can filter them out because you notice patterns, similarities etc. but if you're hiring for something that you don't have experience in then it's getting harder and harder to distinguish. Sadly it's caused me to automatically assuming someone from certain countries are BSing it if their resume sets off my BS meter in any way.
- I used to use Discord communities related to something I was hiring for with a #jobs channel (for example, Flutter), but those "gamers" have figured that out too, and now when you post there, you get a bunch of BS applicants. You can sometimes tell because they don't really bother setting a profile pic or anything for their Discord, so you know they probably just joined to game the system.
All in all, when the application process is over, I am ending up feeling more and more irritated at the amount of time I have wasted filtering and filtering and filtering.
> they don't really bother setting a profile pic or anything for their Discord
I dont have a Discord profile pic or personal info filled in in principle. Ive also disabled the exhibitionist “I am playing this now” feature. That makes me a scammer right?
Or maybe … privacy oriented?
I dont have a Discord profile pic or personal info filled in in principle. Ive also disabled the exhibitionist “I am playing this now” feature. That makes me a scammer right?
Or maybe … privacy oriented?
Well, that's the thing, because you haven't done that, I am now biased to believe you wouldn't be a good applicant regardless of your skills. In the end, the applications gaming has made things worse for everyone, but especially the outliers. And because there's only so much time one can spend screening applicants, the biases will negatively impact genuine candidates as well. The only way out of this I've found so far (aside from the obvious one of networking) is to use paid job posting sites, although that gets to be quite pricey
Well I didn’t even know you can apply for jobs on Discord :) And if I’m looking for a programming chat room I’d probably go on irc. Graybeard.
Leetcode is incredibly easy (just time-consuming) to game, yet it's colloquially regarded as the gold standard for interviewing.
I know someone who plays that GitHub profile game where they, at first glance, appear to be a contributor to ~20 teams' projects. I can tell you inside of a minute though, that his profile is bullshit. I think it's a great idea to ask the candidate about their public GitHub projects (I also think it's a great idea to ask candidates about their past jobs and make the interview as much like a two-way conversation as possible).
What if there were a system where, for each applicant, it were to A) automatically verify the dates of employment with past employers (perfect for a call center in the third world), B) web scrape any linked SO/GitHub/Medium profiles and evaluate "novelty"/legitimacy, and C) look for certifications (ideally there's a central authority like what doctors and lawyers have - Merit[0] is a startup building something like this)? Surely if something like TripleByte can mint money (at least for a time) when they're MANUALLY vetting candidates, there's a market for an automated/semi-automated system of vetting that still delivers a lot of value by, instead of finding the wheat in the chaff, simply removing all the straw from the chaff and leaving the wheat-finding to individual companies (who tended to do that anyway, even with TripleByte).
[0]https://www.merits.com/
I know someone who plays that GitHub profile game where they, at first glance, appear to be a contributor to ~20 teams' projects. I can tell you inside of a minute though, that his profile is bullshit. I think it's a great idea to ask the candidate about their public GitHub projects (I also think it's a great idea to ask candidates about their past jobs and make the interview as much like a two-way conversation as possible).
What if there were a system where, for each applicant, it were to A) automatically verify the dates of employment with past employers (perfect for a call center in the third world), B) web scrape any linked SO/GitHub/Medium profiles and evaluate "novelty"/legitimacy, and C) look for certifications (ideally there's a central authority like what doctors and lawyers have - Merit[0] is a startup building something like this)? Surely if something like TripleByte can mint money (at least for a time) when they're MANUALLY vetting candidates, there's a market for an automated/semi-automated system of vetting that still delivers a lot of value by, instead of finding the wheat in the chaff, simply removing all the straw from the chaff and leaving the wheat-finding to individual companies (who tended to do that anyway, even with TripleByte).
[0]https://www.merits.com/
Just some personal 2 Cents: I have hired quite a few people, interviewed many many and read countless CVs.
In Tech, I really prefer 1 -2 pages tops in a short crisp CV; no extra text and weird sales pitch.
Why? 1) Your actual experience, what you did, how your career progressed etc. matters most. That stuff goes beyond promises, wishes and dreams - but shows the sweat and tears. Github repo links etc: big plus 2) We are all humans that have a mortgage to pay, feed a family etc. I’m not disappointed or mad if people apply for a job for the money and fame. 3) I probably have yet to meet an engineer that would enjoy writing prose about why a job posting and company “were his life long dream”.
I never ask why people apply for a job or switch either. Personally, I would never have had a good answer my self - because you seldom know what the actual job or culture or projects will be like.
In Tech, I really prefer 1 -2 pages tops in a short crisp CV; no extra text and weird sales pitch.
Why? 1) Your actual experience, what you did, how your career progressed etc. matters most. That stuff goes beyond promises, wishes and dreams - but shows the sweat and tears. Github repo links etc: big plus 2) We are all humans that have a mortgage to pay, feed a family etc. I’m not disappointed or mad if people apply for a job for the money and fame. 3) I probably have yet to meet an engineer that would enjoy writing prose about why a job posting and company “were his life long dream”.
I never ask why people apply for a job or switch either. Personally, I would never have had a good answer my self - because you seldom know what the actual job or culture or projects will be like.
That's because you're smart enough to look for key information and make assumptioms
Most HR people prefer the 5-page, write-down-everything-you-have-done resume. I know because I have tried both routes and because of the feedback I got I have ended up maintaining 2 versions (long and short)
Most HR people prefer the 5-page, write-down-everything-you-have-done resume. I know because I have tried both routes and because of the feedback I got I have ended up maintaining 2 versions (long and short)
> Most HR people prefer the 5-page, write-down-everything-you-have-done resume
A company where resumes are pre screened by HR is anyway a no-go. From my experience this has pretty much disappeared in 2023.
A company where resumes are pre screened by HR is anyway a no-go. From my experience this has pretty much disappeared in 2023.
> why people apply for a job or switch either.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-08-17
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-08-17
I'm tempted to use these answers this in my next job interview, just to see what happens.
From your link:
WunderGraph is an all-in-one solution to build, integrate, deploy and monitor modern APIs. We empower developers to ship faster and with confidence.
What does any of that even mean? If I'm submitting an application, it's because you listed specific skills and experience requirements and I meet them. I'm not going to {insert euphemism here} just to satisfy your ego.
Your hiring approach favors bullshitters.
WunderGraph is an all-in-one solution to build, integrate, deploy and monitor modern APIs. We empower developers to ship faster and with confidence.
What does any of that even mean? If I'm submitting an application, it's because you listed specific skills and experience requirements and I meet them. I'm not going to {insert euphemism here} just to satisfy your ego.
Your hiring approach favors bullshitters.
ChatGPT to the rescue!
Take all the buzzwords from the landing page and ask ChatGPT to write you a cover letter
Dear [Recipient's Name],
As a passionate professional who thrives on delivering fast and reliable user experiences across platforms, I am excited to apply for the [Job Title] position at Wundergraph. Your organization's commitment to providing an all-in-one solution that empowers businesses with confidence caught my attention, and I am eager to contribute to the growth and success of your team.
Having worked extensively with various technologies, I have developed a reputation as a full-stack powerhouse, proficient in creating and implementing seamless solutions. I am vendor agnostic, ensuring that I can seamlessly integrate diverse technologies, regardless of the provider. This approach has led me to create products that are truly transformative, leaving no room for guesswork and providing a smooth, efficient experience for users.
Throughout my career, I have focused on products and services that are trusted by clients and loved by the community. The feedback I have received for my work is a testament to my dedication to excellence and my ability to deliver exceptional results. With a "batteries included" mindset, I am always prepared to go the extra mile, ensuring that every project is executed with precision and consistency.
I am particularly drawn to Wundergraph because of its emphasis on providing solutions that require no DevOps intervention. Your organization has a proven track record of producing top-quality products that transform businesses and enable them to scale effortlessly. I am confident that my skills and experience will allow me to make an immediate impact on your team.
In conclusion, I am excited about the opportunity to contribute my expertise to Wundergraph as we empower businesses to thrive in an ever-changing landscape. I am confident that my experience as a full-stack powerhouse, combined with my passion for creating fast and reliable user experiences, will make me a valuable asset to your team.
Thank you for considering my application. I am looking forward to the opportunity to further discuss my qualifications with you and explore how my expertise can contribute to Wundergraph's continued success.
Take all the buzzwords from the landing page and ask ChatGPT to write you a cover letter
Dear [Recipient's Name],
As a passionate professional who thrives on delivering fast and reliable user experiences across platforms, I am excited to apply for the [Job Title] position at Wundergraph. Your organization's commitment to providing an all-in-one solution that empowers businesses with confidence caught my attention, and I am eager to contribute to the growth and success of your team.
Having worked extensively with various technologies, I have developed a reputation as a full-stack powerhouse, proficient in creating and implementing seamless solutions. I am vendor agnostic, ensuring that I can seamlessly integrate diverse technologies, regardless of the provider. This approach has led me to create products that are truly transformative, leaving no room for guesswork and providing a smooth, efficient experience for users.
Throughout my career, I have focused on products and services that are trusted by clients and loved by the community. The feedback I have received for my work is a testament to my dedication to excellence and my ability to deliver exceptional results. With a "batteries included" mindset, I am always prepared to go the extra mile, ensuring that every project is executed with precision and consistency.
I am particularly drawn to Wundergraph because of its emphasis on providing solutions that require no DevOps intervention. Your organization has a proven track record of producing top-quality products that transform businesses and enable them to scale effortlessly. I am confident that my skills and experience will allow me to make an immediate impact on your team.
In conclusion, I am excited about the opportunity to contribute my expertise to Wundergraph as we empower businesses to thrive in an ever-changing landscape. I am confident that my experience as a full-stack powerhouse, combined with my passion for creating fast and reliable user experiences, will make me a valuable asset to your team.
Thank you for considering my application. I am looking forward to the opportunity to further discuss my qualifications with you and explore how my expertise can contribute to Wundergraph's continued success.
After reviewing your excellent application, we regret to inform you we’ve decided to go a different route. We’re hiring ChatGPT. Thank you for your interest and we wish you good luck in the future.
> 1. Why do you want to take this role?
> 2. Why are you a good fit for this role?
"I need someone to pay me a salary so I can make rent. I have valuable skills that match the position, but working for you is not the dream of my life. I will probably quit after a few years if the project is boring or I find a better paying opportunity."
There have been times I was really passionate for a company, and it shows in my cover letters. But when you're looking for a job and are considering hundreds of positions, I have no interest in writing some bullshit story how I have been dreaming of working there since childhood for every single company I am applying for, especially if they're unknown or have limited public presence.
And it is hilarious, sad, and mental that companies expect prospective candidates to lie and/or debase themselves like that. Should I ask any plumber when I have a leak under my sink to tell me why they think they are a good fit for the role, and where do they see themselves in 5 years?
I'm not looking for charity, I am very good at my job, I can create value and improve your product, how is this not enough?
(I know I am looking for contract work these days, and being so outspoken will hurt my chances, but honestly this has to be said. I do not like lying, nor spending 3 hours becoming passionate about your company, just to fall through the cracks and not even get a rejection letter. You need work done, I am good at doing it, let's talk.)
> 2. Why are you a good fit for this role?
"I need someone to pay me a salary so I can make rent. I have valuable skills that match the position, but working for you is not the dream of my life. I will probably quit after a few years if the project is boring or I find a better paying opportunity."
There have been times I was really passionate for a company, and it shows in my cover letters. But when you're looking for a job and are considering hundreds of positions, I have no interest in writing some bullshit story how I have been dreaming of working there since childhood for every single company I am applying for, especially if they're unknown or have limited public presence.
And it is hilarious, sad, and mental that companies expect prospective candidates to lie and/or debase themselves like that. Should I ask any plumber when I have a leak under my sink to tell me why they think they are a good fit for the role, and where do they see themselves in 5 years?
I'm not looking for charity, I am very good at my job, I can create value and improve your product, how is this not enough?
(I know I am looking for contract work these days, and being so outspoken will hurt my chances, but honestly this has to be said. I do not like lying, nor spending 3 hours becoming passionate about your company, just to fall through the cracks and not even get a rejection letter. You need work done, I am good at doing it, let's talk.)
> The question I'm asking myself is. Why should I read your CV when you didn't bother skimming through my landing page, docs, or open source repository.
This can easily be turned around: why should an applicant spend time looking at the landing page or docs, when in all likelihood her application will not be read, and will be filtered out by an HR person who doesn't understand the work and whose only job is to reject the maximum amount of incoming people so that the pipe doesn't get clogged?
It'd be ineffective for someone looking for a job to spend any significant amount of time on any given job ad.
Job hunting is like dating. It's a numbers game.
And it doesn't rely on anyone's true qualities, but on how the other party perceives those qualities. You have to make the other party desire you, either because they want to be with you, or because they convince themselves that you will make them look good.
This can easily be turned around: why should an applicant spend time looking at the landing page or docs, when in all likelihood her application will not be read, and will be filtered out by an HR person who doesn't understand the work and whose only job is to reject the maximum amount of incoming people so that the pipe doesn't get clogged?
It'd be ineffective for someone looking for a job to spend any significant amount of time on any given job ad.
Job hunting is like dating. It's a numbers game.
And it doesn't rely on anyone's true qualities, but on how the other party perceives those qualities. You have to make the other party desire you, either because they want to be with you, or because they convince themselves that you will make them look good.
> What's the purpose of sending a CV when I have to do all the hard work?
Well, you're being paid to do it, the candidates aren't.
Well, you're being paid to do it, the candidates aren't.
> 1. Why do you want to take this role?
> 2. Why are you a good fit for this role?
Good employers know this, they experience it from the other side (testing an employee fit takes time in action, and several times they fail predicting it). Also people can and have to form themselves into the role, no one born fit. Pretending to know the answers already when there could be none yet either shows a will to bullshit or being clueless. None of which are desirable (in most cases, bullshiting is useful for some organizations, of course).
What are the honest and reliable answers here? (in generic case, not for those through backdoors)
1. I need to work for money pretty soon and you just have this open role which I think I could fulfill some way.
2. No chance knowing that at this stage however on the surface and based on both of our public history and things we project about orselves the chances are good.
No way standing out by pretending along such vague or obvious questions, that is basically the generic approach at this elimination stage what everyone is doing. I straight up refuse writing childish essays called cover letter too, ranting about how good fit I am and how thrilled I am applying to this specific role and specific organization happened to have open position when I happened to look for jobs, what a great coincidence and life purpose! I send either nothing, empty page (when the submission system tries to enforce it), or contextual facts about the application. Role relevant facts are already in the CV/Resume. We could talk about intentions and fit in person, not through robotic HR elimnators. If this is no good for the employer then we are definitely no fit.
ChatGpt I need a cover letter for a startup. Here is the plaintext contents of their website...
In the interview, we'll ask in the first minutes what's your opinion of what we do. ChatGPT will not get you that far. After all, what's the point of faking interest? Eventually you'll never really get the job. All you do is waste everybody's time.
Yeah if the interview ever comes there'll be plenty of time to actually be interested
If a candidate has written plaintext summary of your website they've probably done more research than a lot of other candidates who apply.
> In the interview, we'll ask in the first minutes what's your opinion of what we do.
You pay people for their labor. Most people view that favorably. The ones who don’t you probably don’t want to hire.
Requiring people to join your cult seems a bit much imho.
You pay people for their labor. Most people view that favorably. The ones who don’t you probably don’t want to hire.
Requiring people to join your cult seems a bit much imho.
> Requiring people to join your cult seems a bit much imho.
Idk, GP has maybe been… over-expressive about their opportunity, but it’s still good advice that showing an interest is going to make you stand out more. Saying “do you need code written because I can write code” says nothing.
I’m getting work done on my house and the guy who’s getting the work is the one who spent a bit more time looking at my house and assessing what needs done rather than a cursory glance. Isn’t it understandable that employers want at least some engagement?
Idk, GP has maybe been… over-expressive about their opportunity, but it’s still good advice that showing an interest is going to make you stand out more. Saying “do you need code written because I can write code” says nothing.
I’m getting work done on my house and the guy who’s getting the work is the one who spent a bit more time looking at my house and assessing what needs done rather than a cursory glance. Isn’t it understandable that employers want at least some engagement?
I just think the cover letter is a byzantine chore that's easily faked. Not a real signal that the candidate is a good one.
To your point "in the interview...", I think hammers home the post's key point that the real process is the interview. Everything else is just to get you there.
To your point "in the interview...", I think hammers home the post's key point that the real process is the interview. Everything else is just to get you there.
Sure it will, but even if it doesn't, it's less time I have to spend writing a cover letter.
So you give jobs only to those able to feign interest. I'm not sure that's worthwhile.
And step 1 is precisely the hoop-jumping nonsense ChatGPT is automating. Look forward to all candidates providing a resume and a letter generated from "ChatGPT, write a business-y sounding letter that shows my passion for this AI for dogs startup".
Not every engineer is product focused. I am myself am, but I understand that many engineers (including great ones) just like solving hard technical problems in a stack they like, the product itself is an afterthought.
By presupposing some ideal type of candidate and using that as a main signal, I think you're blundering and missing out on good candidates. I see that with a lot of startups that have more ego than they ought to.
>Why should I read your CV when you didn't bother skimming through my landing page, docs, or open source repository. What's the purpose of sending a CV when I have to do all the hard work?
How are you doing all the hard work, and aren't you getting paid to do that work—so what do you care? The candidates have a lot more to lose, it's much easier to skim through a CV than try to grok your homepage, repo, docs etc., and perhaps the more experienced engineers know the cost-benefit analysis of wasting their time going through arbitrary hoops after being burned many times before.
By presupposing some ideal type of candidate and using that as a main signal, I think you're blundering and missing out on good candidates. I see that with a lot of startups that have more ego than they ought to.
>Why should I read your CV when you didn't bother skimming through my landing page, docs, or open source repository. What's the purpose of sending a CV when I have to do all the hard work?
How are you doing all the hard work, and aren't you getting paid to do that work—so what do you care? The candidates have a lot more to lose, it's much easier to skim through a CV than try to grok your homepage, repo, docs etc., and perhaps the more experienced engineers know the cost-benefit analysis of wasting their time going through arbitrary hoops after being burned many times before.
Yeah, I remember the time when I had to pretend I was interested in what the company was doing.
It's been almost 10 years that my default answer for the question "why do you want to work here" has been along the lines of "I don't know if I want yet. A recruiter from your company reached out, so I'm evaluating you guys during the interview too".
If the market changes back to favor employers I can go back at faking interest.
Them bills, they keep coming.
It's been almost 10 years that my default answer for the question "why do you want to work here" has been along the lines of "I don't know if I want yet. A recruiter from your company reached out, so I'm evaluating you guys during the interview too".
If the market changes back to favor employers I can go back at faking interest.
Them bills, they keep coming.
The company I work at is not a startup but we're small, and yeah hiring is hard. Being small, each person makes a huge impact. Someone who under-performs can be a significant net drag, not just in actual output but also in terms of opportunity cost. Fitting in with the team is paramount too as we can't shuffle people around, we're just a handful of folks.
So I can completely relate to wanting to be picky.
I'm not familiar with how things are normally done "over there", but here in Norway all the "how to write a job application" tips that the media writes about here every now an then includes some expert saying to go to the website, read what the company is about, read the job opening description carefully and write something relevant to that. Not unlike what you mention.
So I can completely relate to wanting to be picky.
I'm not familiar with how things are normally done "over there", but here in Norway all the "how to write a job application" tips that the media writes about here every now an then includes some expert saying to go to the website, read what the company is about, read the job opening description carefully and write something relevant to that. Not unlike what you mention.
I feel like the important skill to learn is learning itself, and it becomes more and more pronounced.
I think the idea of learning and adjusting to each and every company you are about to apply can be intimidating at first. The world is changing fast. Skills and tools deprecate quickly – and it is getting even faster now. It only make sense the recruiter will pay more attention to core traits such as motivation, communication, creativity and ability to learn – vs technical knowledge which is still necessary but has less weight. So having an applicant learned about your company and demonstrating why this particular match could work, could hint about the traits aforementioned.
I don't really agree. If a person has the skills to solve a companies problems then that should be everything required. Why do you expect people to have to jump through hoops to fake enthusiasm? The reality is software engineers have a million ideas they would rather be working on than a day job. Most people don't work jobs because they want to. They do it to earn a pay check to pay bills. If someone can do high quality relevant work that's all that should be needed.
[deleted]
> What's the purpose of sending a CV when I have to do all the hard work?
The article we are discussing here claims that there already is an asymmetry in the sense that the applicant has to put time into polishing a resume while the company does basically nothing.
So, you are going even further by essentially requiring the applicant to first write an open source library in the space before they are interesting?
The article we are discussing here claims that there already is an asymmetry in the sense that the applicant has to put time into polishing a resume while the company does basically nothing.
So, you are going even further by essentially requiring the applicant to first write an open source library in the space before they are interesting?
Hey, I've done that :)
(well, at least contributing to an open-source library in the space to get an idea of the domain while applying)
(well, at least contributing to an open-source library in the space to get an idea of the domain while applying)
[deleted]
Yep.
"Fit" means hitting many axises, especially efficient results.
Cover letter and selective resume emphasis tailoring are targeted product marketing.
Candidate should research the company and possibly the career of the interviewer(s).
Candidate should have a 45s elevator pitch on why they should be hired.
Be prepared and demonstrate unique and essential usefulness.
"Fit" means hitting many axises, especially efficient results.
Cover letter and selective resume emphasis tailoring are targeted product marketing.
Candidate should research the company and possibly the career of the interviewer(s).
Candidate should have a 45s elevator pitch on why they should be hired.
Be prepared and demonstrate unique and essential usefulness.
> are truly inspired by your vision.
That sounds about as genuine as it is grammatically correct.
That sounds about as genuine as it is grammatically correct.
While I am no stranger to interacting with developers who seem to only be in the industry because of how well it pays, I find your advice frustrating. My experience with startups is that they demand a lot of A) interest from the candidate immediately, before the candidate has even talked to a human, and B) attention from the candidate- but that same interest and attention is not returned to the candidate. Thinking about the startups I interviewed with in the last couple of years (all via TripleByte fwiw), I have noticed the following patterns:
- The founders/cofounders think they have come up with the best idea ever, when objectively the idea is novel but garbage (usually a solution looking for a problem), and only want to hire people eager to smell their farts all day long (and probably on some nights and weekends, too).
- The interview process is unnecessarily complicated, despite the supposed ahead-of-time vetting done by TripleByte (which used to tout "skip to the final interview", but in reality is "skip the computer-graded, timed Leetcode Easy brain teaser"). In the worst-case, a company had me interview with 4 different people throughout the week, give a 15-minute presentation on a coding project I worked on, and then they expected me to work nights and weekends for an entire week to "test drive" me (the irony here is that while they get an idea of what it's like to have me as an employee, I don't really get to see what it's like to work for them as a company - it's not like I am in their Slack channels or participating in meetings.
- The pay isn't that great. Again, the founders are delusional, think it would be a real privilege for anyone to work for them, and seem to believe that they cannot be too selective. "Give me a candidate who has familiarity with NodeJS on the backend and [Scala/Ruby/Go/Rust] (because why not), is willing and able to work nights and weekends (but it's okay because we offer uNliMiTeD PTO), all for the generous, generous salary of $130k/year.
If you don't draw parallels between these and Wundergraph, kudos, but with each of the startups I interviewed with, I could feel myself becoming more and more jaded until I just gave up. A year later I'm still at my current job, and I'm glad I stayed, but I put a lot of energy into those interviews, hours spent even before I had my first interview, just researching the company, looking at their code (if any of it was public) and coming up with thoughtful questions. Why did these four companies not want to give me a job offer? I'm not sure. It could certainly be cultural more than technical. Despite my cynical attitude now, I promise you I came into each interview with enthusiasm, respect, and genuine interest in the role.
I was also sure they all knew where to find my LinkedIn, Medium, StackOverflow and Github profiles, which all give insight into my abilities and (I think) prove I enjoy writing code and building stuff, and most importantly, that I could probably handle whatever frontend-for-a-database app they were building. Let's be real, most apps aren't that complicated.
- The founders/cofounders think they have come up with the best idea ever, when objectively the idea is novel but garbage (usually a solution looking for a problem), and only want to hire people eager to smell their farts all day long (and probably on some nights and weekends, too).
- The interview process is unnecessarily complicated, despite the supposed ahead-of-time vetting done by TripleByte (which used to tout "skip to the final interview", but in reality is "skip the computer-graded, timed Leetcode Easy brain teaser"). In the worst-case, a company had me interview with 4 different people throughout the week, give a 15-minute presentation on a coding project I worked on, and then they expected me to work nights and weekends for an entire week to "test drive" me (the irony here is that while they get an idea of what it's like to have me as an employee, I don't really get to see what it's like to work for them as a company - it's not like I am in their Slack channels or participating in meetings.
- The pay isn't that great. Again, the founders are delusional, think it would be a real privilege for anyone to work for them, and seem to believe that they cannot be too selective. "Give me a candidate who has familiarity with NodeJS on the backend and [Scala/Ruby/Go/Rust] (because why not), is willing and able to work nights and weekends (but it's okay because we offer uNliMiTeD PTO), all for the generous, generous salary of $130k/year.
If you don't draw parallels between these and Wundergraph, kudos, but with each of the startups I interviewed with, I could feel myself becoming more and more jaded until I just gave up. A year later I'm still at my current job, and I'm glad I stayed, but I put a lot of energy into those interviews, hours spent even before I had my first interview, just researching the company, looking at their code (if any of it was public) and coming up with thoughtful questions. Why did these four companies not want to give me a job offer? I'm not sure. It could certainly be cultural more than technical. Despite my cynical attitude now, I promise you I came into each interview with enthusiasm, respect, and genuine interest in the role.
I was also sure they all knew where to find my LinkedIn, Medium, StackOverflow and Github profiles, which all give insight into my abilities and (I think) prove I enjoy writing code and building stuff, and most importantly, that I could probably handle whatever frontend-for-a-database app they were building. Let's be real, most apps aren't that complicated.
Were these interviews via triplebyte in the last year or two or before that? I've heard that the platform isn't what it used to be.
I hear it isn’t what it used to be as well. They used to do in-person interviews, then they moved to un-proctored quizzes to prove skill, which I find to be a unique and mostly-accurate gauge of skill in a particular area. That said, I don’t know how common cheating would be. If it’s high, that certainly explains why companies don’t seem to put much merit on them.
Also, there’s the irony that TripleByte went from a language-agnostic in-person (virtual) interview to very specific quizzes. So instead of saying “this dev knows how to dev”, they now say “this dev knows C#, Python, SQL, and JavaScript”
Also, there’s the irony that TripleByte went from a language-agnostic in-person (virtual) interview to very specific quizzes. So instead of saying “this dev knows how to dev”, they now say “this dev knows C#, Python, SQL, and JavaScript”
The flip side is a company interviewing me, and didn't open any of my relevant social profiles.
Instead, I'm getting complexity questions whose solution amounts to "do a cumulative sum?"
Instead, I'm getting complexity questions whose solution amounts to "do a cumulative sum?"
This is just more of the same thing the author was complaining about.
What evidence do you present, besides your own company, that any of that works at increasing one's chances?
I guess I need to get better at lying.
Resumes are the thing I look through. Cover letters are discarded before reading.
Just happened to see this.
If your buying say, steel, presumably you care very little about the supplier, their story, etc. You want specs (carbon content, hardness, annealing temperature, whatever) and price.
Likewise, hiring people as commodities, you don't care about the cover letter, you want to know where they went to school and want experience they have.
If you're trying to hire a person as opposed to a commodity, you will care a lot less about the specs and more about the person, and want to hear their story.
If your buying say, steel, presumably you care very little about the supplier, their story, etc. You want specs (carbon content, hardness, annealing temperature, whatever) and price.
Likewise, hiring people as commodities, you don't care about the cover letter, you want to know where they went to school and want experience they have.
If you're trying to hire a person as opposed to a commodity, you will care a lot less about the specs and more about the person, and want to hear their story.
As an employee, I want my employer to see me as an employee. Because I damn sure view them as an employer.
This is a good baseline for a working relationship. They can be a good employer, with good salary and decent benefits. They can treat their employees fairly, offer some okay work-life balance, etc
And as an employee, I can be a good one. Always being professional and polite, striving to keep a healthy environment among the workforce, and using my skills effectively to help the business while doing my job.
Seeing each other as a commodity is fine. My worst job experience was in a startup that really didn't see things this way.
This is a good baseline for a working relationship. They can be a good employer, with good salary and decent benefits. They can treat their employees fairly, offer some okay work-life balance, etc
And as an employee, I can be a good one. Always being professional and polite, striving to keep a healthy environment among the workforce, and using my skills effectively to help the business while doing my job.
Seeing each other as a commodity is fine. My worst job experience was in a startup that really didn't see things this way.
You are missing the point - CV is the story. Some prefer prose, others prefer structured text. You should not penalize anyone due to their preferences of the form.
I'd be very interested to see a CV that I really felt was s story. I know it's possible to make up story to fit one, but I still see them mostly as specs rather than something that gives you a sense of the person.
Otoh, I'm going to try and remember this the next time I make a CV and see if i can make it a story. If done well I can see this as a powerful way of presenting yourself. (And for clarity, I mean a real story that gives a sense of the person, not the story of some career progression)
Otoh, I'm going to try and remember this the next time I make a CV and see if i can make it a story. If done well I can see this as a powerful way of presenting yourself. (And for clarity, I mean a real story that gives a sense of the person, not the story of some career progression)
I want to hear their story. I still won't read cover letters, because those aren't that.
I'll offer a counter view from my (annoyingly large) experience interviewing and hiring; I would ignore such statements on a CV at best, and depending on how much a candidate bets on this strategy, it might even work to their disadvantage.
I need smart people that want to work and are willing to do that work with my team; I don't want or need someone to promote the party line, that's why we have Sales and Brand teams, I need people who for some amount of time are willing to spend their time and skills on our problem sets. Our problem sets aren't so unique, so I also want them to stick around for awhile (not forever, that's unrealistic). Finally, I need and want people that can at least be cordial with the existing team as opposed to disrupting it.
If I ask my colleagues who also decide on hiring, probably they'd have different wants and needs, maybe echoing the parent post, I don't know for sure. There's what my colleagues say and then what they think when deciding. It's a crap shoot for the candidates for sure, and I'm very sympathetic to this; it's also a crap shoot for us as it means that depending on who takes the interview, a different set of criteria is being used, so it's a real risk; autocratizing isn't good either because then it means higher chances we can't evolve the team.
Hiring is a real mess, and I have no good answer on making it better, just that it needs to be. The short list of problems I think are pretty universal for candidates and employers includes:
- It's an inefficient and time consuming process for all
- It encourages both sides to lie to each other for legal reasons and because it's the only way to get attention
- It's too easy for misinformation/weak points to cloud the process with misinformation, intentionally or otherwise
- Everyone has to make decisions based on incomplete and often inaccurate information
- The interests of employers and candidates are set up to be at odds, even though it shouldn't be this way (salaries, benefits, demands on time/skills, emotional costs, etc)
With CVs/resumes, I probably spend no more than 2-5 minutes on them, and it's usually with ctrl+f to hunt down the keywords for skills we identified would solve our problem set and to give me something to talk with the candidate about during the interview, and the interview is mostly to figure out "does this candidate actually have relevant experience here or it's just keyword spamming?"
I'm very lucky that at least one of our Talent Acquisition teams is quite good and their initial interviews/screenings have a higher success rate than the other TA teams, so I've come to rely on that a lot, but it's still difficult as the TA team are not technical persons, and despite their earnest interest (and KPIs) to get us in touch with good candidates, mistakes happen.
I really wonder what hiring would look like if work wasn't a requirement for people to survive, that is, in a world with universal income and guaranteed living. The work still needs to be done, but the candidates in this scenario have a much different incentive since their literal livelihood doesn't depend on them getting the job. My hope is that it would mean candidates choose to apply because of their genuine interest, and the type of problems the company tries to solve suddenly become a much more competitive currency we barter with. I think some might say that it already is like that, but I think that's an incomplete understanding of how hiring has worked for a very long time.
So I'm really not sure how to make it better and more efficient, and how to get past the awful situation we have now; I hope that removing the "you need this job to survive" can gain traction and make it better, but the cynic in me says this isn't likely in my life time.
For the time being, what I would recommend for technical candidates is the following:
1. Be cordial with the recruiters. You don't have to suck up to them, but if you can't at least be cordial with them, I have low hopes you are going to be cordial with the people you need to work with every day. The recruiters have their guidance on what we're looking for and yes it's going to be basic and limited stuff I told them to check out; they aren't going to understand everything about our tech and work naturally, but what they're screening is the basic stuff that they can understand so that I don't have to check these basics. They want you hired also remember, because it is their job to get people hired; at least the TA teams I like are constantly advocates for candidates they think have a chance, so don't burn bridges with the persons who are sticking up for you internally†
2. Keep your CV relevant and concise. Concise doesn't mean short, write what you think we're interested in, but make it parsable. I want to be able to understand what tech you've worked with, your responsibilities regarding it, and to have some items for us to talk about. Hundreds of bullet points or listed items doesn't help me if it buries the relevant experiences for me under layers of irrelevant experiences. Length, specific words/phrases, it's not as important even for the auto-screening tools. Just take a small amount of time to make it well formatted, free of typos, and it's likely fine. Freebie CV generators are perfectly fine, and preferable to CV templates in Word or other hand rolled CVs. Length doesn't matter as we're just going to ctrl+f anyways.
3. Make it clear what problem sets you're interested in, and during the interview, ask questions so that you understand if our problem sets and day to day are among your interests. I'm usually happy to talk about our day to day pretty directly so that you have a complete picture on what you're applying if it means
4. Just be cordial during the interview; I don't need people to flatter me or the company, and I just need to see you can work with the team; I don't learn that from hearing how great the company is.
† I'm fully aware that many Talent Acquisition Teams are quite awful, and many recruiters are not like I described here; nevertheless, they are often still the only advocate you'll have unless you know someone on the inside. I think most hiring managers rely heavily on their TA teams regardless of how good they are, so at least be cordial with recruiters.
I need smart people that want to work and are willing to do that work with my team; I don't want or need someone to promote the party line, that's why we have Sales and Brand teams, I need people who for some amount of time are willing to spend their time and skills on our problem sets. Our problem sets aren't so unique, so I also want them to stick around for awhile (not forever, that's unrealistic). Finally, I need and want people that can at least be cordial with the existing team as opposed to disrupting it.
If I ask my colleagues who also decide on hiring, probably they'd have different wants and needs, maybe echoing the parent post, I don't know for sure. There's what my colleagues say and then what they think when deciding. It's a crap shoot for the candidates for sure, and I'm very sympathetic to this; it's also a crap shoot for us as it means that depending on who takes the interview, a different set of criteria is being used, so it's a real risk; autocratizing isn't good either because then it means higher chances we can't evolve the team.
Hiring is a real mess, and I have no good answer on making it better, just that it needs to be. The short list of problems I think are pretty universal for candidates and employers includes:
- It's an inefficient and time consuming process for all
- It encourages both sides to lie to each other for legal reasons and because it's the only way to get attention
- It's too easy for misinformation/weak points to cloud the process with misinformation, intentionally or otherwise
- Everyone has to make decisions based on incomplete and often inaccurate information
- The interests of employers and candidates are set up to be at odds, even though it shouldn't be this way (salaries, benefits, demands on time/skills, emotional costs, etc)
With CVs/resumes, I probably spend no more than 2-5 minutes on them, and it's usually with ctrl+f to hunt down the keywords for skills we identified would solve our problem set and to give me something to talk with the candidate about during the interview, and the interview is mostly to figure out "does this candidate actually have relevant experience here or it's just keyword spamming?"
I'm very lucky that at least one of our Talent Acquisition teams is quite good and their initial interviews/screenings have a higher success rate than the other TA teams, so I've come to rely on that a lot, but it's still difficult as the TA team are not technical persons, and despite their earnest interest (and KPIs) to get us in touch with good candidates, mistakes happen.
I really wonder what hiring would look like if work wasn't a requirement for people to survive, that is, in a world with universal income and guaranteed living. The work still needs to be done, but the candidates in this scenario have a much different incentive since their literal livelihood doesn't depend on them getting the job. My hope is that it would mean candidates choose to apply because of their genuine interest, and the type of problems the company tries to solve suddenly become a much more competitive currency we barter with. I think some might say that it already is like that, but I think that's an incomplete understanding of how hiring has worked for a very long time.
So I'm really not sure how to make it better and more efficient, and how to get past the awful situation we have now; I hope that removing the "you need this job to survive" can gain traction and make it better, but the cynic in me says this isn't likely in my life time.
For the time being, what I would recommend for technical candidates is the following:
1. Be cordial with the recruiters. You don't have to suck up to them, but if you can't at least be cordial with them, I have low hopes you are going to be cordial with the people you need to work with every day. The recruiters have their guidance on what we're looking for and yes it's going to be basic and limited stuff I told them to check out; they aren't going to understand everything about our tech and work naturally, but what they're screening is the basic stuff that they can understand so that I don't have to check these basics. They want you hired also remember, because it is their job to get people hired; at least the TA teams I like are constantly advocates for candidates they think have a chance, so don't burn bridges with the persons who are sticking up for you internally†
2. Keep your CV relevant and concise. Concise doesn't mean short, write what you think we're interested in, but make it parsable. I want to be able to understand what tech you've worked with, your responsibilities regarding it, and to have some items for us to talk about. Hundreds of bullet points or listed items doesn't help me if it buries the relevant experiences for me under layers of irrelevant experiences. Length, specific words/phrases, it's not as important even for the auto-screening tools. Just take a small amount of time to make it well formatted, free of typos, and it's likely fine. Freebie CV generators are perfectly fine, and preferable to CV templates in Word or other hand rolled CVs. Length doesn't matter as we're just going to ctrl+f anyways.
3. Make it clear what problem sets you're interested in, and during the interview, ask questions so that you understand if our problem sets and day to day are among your interests. I'm usually happy to talk about our day to day pretty directly so that you have a complete picture on what you're applying if it means
4. Just be cordial during the interview; I don't need people to flatter me or the company, and I just need to see you can work with the team; I don't learn that from hearing how great the company is.
† I'm fully aware that many Talent Acquisition Teams are quite awful, and many recruiters are not like I described here; nevertheless, they are often still the only advocate you'll have unless you know someone on the inside. I think most hiring managers rely heavily on their TA teams regardless of how good they are, so at least be cordial with recruiters.
Overly generalized rant.
Sure some jobs happen outside the resume submission system, but most of the employment market works via resume submission.
There’s no value in reading this post.
Sure some jobs happen outside the resume submission system, but most of the employment market works via resume submission.
There’s no value in reading this post.
Thinking back on my life, I can't remember a single example where I ever got a job just by submitting a resume. Either I already knew someone in the organization or otherwise had a relationship with it to begin with (e.g. I got a summer grounds job at a University because I was already a student there), or I met someone at an event who was looking for people to hire.
I've gotten all of my offers from cold applications. Didn't know anyone, just submitted an app through the ATS and got an email that led to an interview then to an offer
But how does that even work? Even if you know someone at the company, at some point you have to apply online, to get into the real HR pipeline.
I occasionally have people I used to work with ask me for help getting a job. I usually encourage them and give them some interview pointers, but ultimately I have to say “Here is the link to the posting, go apply and good luck!”
I am just employee number 52214. I don’t have an HR button I can push that says “fast track this swell guy!”
I occasionally have people I used to work with ask me for help getting a job. I usually encourage them and give them some interview pointers, but ultimately I have to say “Here is the link to the posting, go apply and good luck!”
I am just employee number 52214. I don’t have an HR button I can push that says “fast track this swell guy!”
My most recent job was with Intel. I got invited to some kind of recruiting event, I'm not sure how. One of my friends was trying to get me to join, so maybe he sent them my email address? Or maybe they spotted me on LinkedIn? I have no idea. Anyways, I ended up talking to one of their senior engineers on the project they were hiring for. I can't remember if it came out then or later that that senior engineer was a college friend of a guy that founded a startup I had previously worked for. Not sure if that made any difference or not, but I had relevant experience in the area they were hiring for, so they brought me in for an interview. (Which turned out to be an all-day ordeal, but I passed.)
The startup I had worked at before, I was hired because I went to a local un-conference, Portland BarCamp. I ran into someone I know from the Personal Telco Project, which started back in the early days of 802.11 wireless networking and was trying to promote free access points around town. Anyways, he knew someone else there that was hiring for a startup, so he introduced me and we talked and I went in for an interview and got the job.
In either case, it's not like friends are directly getting me jobs (as far as I know), it's more that my network of acquaintances aligned in a favorable way and I was in the right place at the right time.
The startup I had worked at before, I was hired because I went to a local un-conference, Portland BarCamp. I ran into someone I know from the Personal Telco Project, which started back in the early days of 802.11 wireless networking and was trying to promote free access points around town. Anyways, he knew someone else there that was hiring for a startup, so he introduced me and we talked and I went in for an interview and got the job.
In either case, it's not like friends are directly getting me jobs (as far as I know), it's more that my network of acquaintances aligned in a favorable way and I was in the right place at the right time.
What is an un-conference?
Never heard that term before.
Never heard that term before.
It's like a conference, but there isn't an attendance fee or pre-scheduled presenters. At the beginning, there's a big board with a grid of timeslots and rooms. If you want to give a talk, you write down your name and what the talk is about on a sheet of paper and stick it in one of the grid squares. If it sounds interesting, people will show up.
BarCamp started as sort of a reaction to an O'Reiley event called FooCamp which was invitation-only, and in Portland it ran for a number of years until it got replaced by Open Source Bridge which ran for a few more years. I'm not aware of anything like it in Portland now, which is a shame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_Camp
BarCamp started as sort of a reaction to an O'Reiley event called FooCamp which was invitation-only, and in Portland it ran for a number of years until it got replaced by Open Source Bridge which ran for a few more years. I'm not aware of anything like it in Portland now, which is a shame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_Camp
Interesting format. Never heard of it before.
Most companies have a referral system.
You also know the structure inside: meaning you can say hi to a hiring manager you may or may not know, and say “check this guy out - I vouch for him”
You also know the structure inside: meaning you can say hi to a hiring manager you may or may not know, and say “check this guy out - I vouch for him”
Except my most recent job where I used a recruiter, I've only got jobs by submitting a CV. One was a huge company with an official application process (Dyson) and the other two were startups via email.
You definitely have higher odds with a more nepotistic route, but I think he's still right - most jobs go to applicants that apply using the standard process.
You definitely have higher odds with a more nepotistic route, but I think he's still right - most jobs go to applicants that apply using the standard process.
My experience is sort of in-between on both sides. That is, there's some submission process people go through, but connections of some sort definitely draw attention to some applicants more than others. Sometimes someone is brought in with no obvious connections, but sometimes someone is basically brought in sidestepping the open process too. Usually it's a bit of both, leaning towards connections of some kind. Sometimes the interviewers or interviewees aren't aware of the connection, although usually one of them is.
And I've only ever gotten jobs through resumes. I have no family, friends, or acquaintances. Most people wouldn't willingly be in my presence were it not for the fact that I can occasionally be useful to them. And I rarely leave my home for anything other then absolute necessities to eat and maintain personal hygiene.
I assume you at least have some level of charisma that would make others think of you positively at combined with skill. As well as some willingness to go to events as you say.
You and I think though are somewhat exceptional in that regard; I assume most people would have gotten their jobs with a bit of a mix of the two in varying ratios.
I assume you at least have some level of charisma that would make others think of you positively at combined with skill. As well as some willingness to go to events as you say.
You and I think though are somewhat exceptional in that regard; I assume most people would have gotten their jobs with a bit of a mix of the two in varying ratios.
I've gotten my last two offers -- as a senior engineer at Dropbox and as an engineer at a top-end quantitative trading firm -- from cold resume submission without any networking. I also got interviews in this last round from both Jane Street and Hudson River Trading based purely on a cold resume submission.
Admittedly, my resume is excellent, but jobs can absolutely happen from just sending in an application and a resume. Even really good, high-paying jobs.
Admittedly, my resume is excellent, but jobs can absolutely happen from just sending in an application and a resume. Even really good, high-paying jobs.
As a counterpoint, every single job I've ever had I've got by submitting a resume. I have worked for six companies at this point.
Aside from which, the post is just very misguided. The author seems to believe that writing a resume involves “committing a significant amount of time doing unpaid labor for a company to manage the company’s risk and hiring costs.” You could say the same thing about an interview. It just makes no sense.
The post also claims that a hypothetical “golden curriculum vitae” literally created by angels would not “increase your chances of getting hired at all.” This seems completely oblivious to the actual role resumes play in the hiring process. There’s no question that a good resume can make an applicant stand out, and predispose interviewers to favor a candidate.
The reason the author gives for his strange belief is:
> The employer is very, very clear in terms of everything they do that they don’t trust your resume even a little and give it exactly zero weight - else they wouldn’t waste manager time interviewing you to get you to rehash it.
But I’ve never been in an interview, on either side, which involved a “rehash” of the resume. Resumes and interviews serve different, complementary purposes.
The post also claims that a hypothetical “golden curriculum vitae” literally created by angels would not “increase your chances of getting hired at all.” This seems completely oblivious to the actual role resumes play in the hiring process. There’s no question that a good resume can make an applicant stand out, and predispose interviewers to favor a candidate.
The reason the author gives for his strange belief is:
> The employer is very, very clear in terms of everything they do that they don’t trust your resume even a little and give it exactly zero weight - else they wouldn’t waste manager time interviewing you to get you to rehash it.
But I’ve never been in an interview, on either side, which involved a “rehash” of the resume. Resumes and interviews serve different, complementary purposes.
Let's be honest, the alternative to having an open hiring process, i.e. resumes, is nepotism and hiring your chums and the chums of your contacts. Which does describe the hiring process in a lot of startups. Ethical issues aside, the problem with this is that it shrinks the pool of potential hires down drastically, to people who look like you, think like you, and know roughly the same things as you. Great if your customers also fit into this bracket, not so great if they don't.
However I think the OP drastically underestimates the proportion of wholly unqualified on paper people who apply for most jobs. I'd put it at 50% for most and up to 90% for some. So you can see why people go down the nepotism + chums route.
As someone who has a deeply weird CV and life experiences / social circle that is pretty much orthogonal to most techies it can be difficult, as the nepotism / chums route is not available. But just writing a cover letter to the JD and company gets me a fair way usually.
However I think the OP drastically underestimates the proportion of wholly unqualified on paper people who apply for most jobs. I'd put it at 50% for most and up to 90% for some. So you can see why people go down the nepotism + chums route.
As someone who has a deeply weird CV and life experiences / social circle that is pretty much orthogonal to most techies it can be difficult, as the nepotism / chums route is not available. But just writing a cover letter to the JD and company gets me a fair way usually.
But let's also be honest: startup founders aren't hiring "their chums" out of some unethical sense of helping their friends who don't deserve it, they're hiring people they know and who they have good reason to believe are going to help them succeed. The fact that their chums tend to be people who look like them and think like them is an unfortunate side effect of this, but the idea of getting candidates via networking is not fundamentally wrong when the goal is finding people you think are going to contribute. Personal experience with a candidate is a very strong bit of signal in an otherwise very flawed process.
It's not a fundamentally bad idea from a practical point of view (like I said, I'll leave the ethics out of it), but I think it is not as good an idea as a lot of people think as it narrows the field so much. Also the signal that people get, unless they have worked directly with a person, rather than just chatted with them at a networking event or know them from their childhood, is I would argue "belongs to my tribe", rather than "good at x"
Yes, that's totally fair. But I'll say that I've taken or been offered "networking-enhanced" job opportunities in startups a handful of times, and they were always people I knew and had worked with directly, or in one case, someone who was extremely close to a person I had worked with directly.
"Chatted with someone at a networking event" seems like an extremely weak signal, and I'd be suspicious of that type of hire.
"Chatted with someone at a networking event" seems like an extremely weak signal, and I'd be suspicious of that type of hire.
> But let's also be honest
I don't think that is being honest.
> aren't hiring "their chums" out of some unethical sense of helping their friends who don't deserve it, they're hiring people they know and who they have good reason to believe are going to help them succeed
No one says "I'm going to unethically help people who don't deserve it," so let's discard that part.
They're cheating at the normal hiring practice, not allowing other candidates in, because they think it gives them some sort of advantage. And that doesn't look entirely ethical.
It's only deemed "business unethical" if someone can prove discrimination in court, though. And that's honest.
I don't think that is being honest.
> aren't hiring "their chums" out of some unethical sense of helping their friends who don't deserve it, they're hiring people they know and who they have good reason to believe are going to help them succeed
No one says "I'm going to unethically help people who don't deserve it," so let's discard that part.
They're cheating at the normal hiring practice, not allowing other candidates in, because they think it gives them some sort of advantage. And that doesn't look entirely ethical.
It's only deemed "business unethical" if someone can prove discrimination in court, though. And that's honest.
> They're cheating at the normal hiring practice, not allowing other candidates in, because they think it gives them some sort of advantage.
No, they're not "cheating," they are taking a shortcut to a known good candidate so they can get their job done quickly. If you need an employee and you know of one that would meet your needs, you have no obligation to search far and wide just in case there's someone else who's just as qualified out of some sense of fairness. The fact that some organizations behave as if that's a requirement is simply a self-imposed (or sometimes contractually-imposed by some other org e.g. via government contract) safety mechanism that helps reduce the opportunity for corruption (or the appearance of corruption).
No, they're not "cheating," they are taking a shortcut to a known good candidate so they can get their job done quickly. If you need an employee and you know of one that would meet your needs, you have no obligation to search far and wide just in case there's someone else who's just as qualified out of some sense of fairness. The fact that some organizations behave as if that's a requirement is simply a self-imposed (or sometimes contractually-imposed by some other org e.g. via government contract) safety mechanism that helps reduce the opportunity for corruption (or the appearance of corruption).
In short, having someone on the inside recommend you is better. Thanks, Captain Obvious.
> That leaves a field of 40 more-or-less qualified people who have at this point all committed a significant amount of time doing unpaid labor for a company to manage the company’s risk and hiring costs.
Ahh yes, the "significant amount of time doing unpaid labor" of sending my resume via email, which took me all of 5 minutes.
Ahh yes, the "significant amount of time doing unpaid labor" of sending my resume via email, which took me all of 5 minutes.
Lets say you're someone who has changed careers alot, it means finding and applying is your full-time job for months on end. Despite people who have changed careers, succesfully, are often the best kind of people you'd want to hire.
I wonder if there is some atonement ritual that those of us who have strayed from the career path can go through to be accepted back,.. like bathing in the Living Waters beneath an amazon data center..
My dad's friend emailed over 400 companies looking for a job. The response rate is atrocious
> significant amount of time doing unpaid labor for a company
That’s such a strange way to look at it… if a company advertises, are they doing “unpaid labour to help me manage my purchasing”?
That’s such a strange way to look at it… if a company advertises, are they doing “unpaid labour to help me manage my purchasing”?
> A group of 50 applicants submit resumes for a job. 10 or so of them are delusional, and get cut.
I think the author never worked in hiring for an org that got a lot of applicants. When I was a hiring manager, we sometimes opened reqs and got hundreds of applications within the first one or two days.
I think the author never worked in hiring for an org that got a lot of applicants. When I was a hiring manager, we sometimes opened reqs and got hundreds of applications within the first one or two days.
Not to mention that a 20% delusional rate is pretty unlikely - more like 50-75% in my experience.
And that's before you even get to fizz buzz, where you lose all hope in humanity and start wondering if maybe the AIs should end software development as a profession.
Getting large numbers of applicants can definitely be time consuming and costly for companies. Trying to find ways to cut the crap out is tough. I recall reading about a manager who would just randomly toss half the resumes, saying he only hired lucky people. I've been around the block before and I'd take the lucky route anytime compared to some continuous interview cycles that never go anywhere.
Yes having someone vouch for you means a lot less BS - that's obvious. But you're still going to have to present a resume, and assuming you want the job you must take that part seriously.
Life-hack for applicants: stand out with a cover letter.
Life-hack #2: Use ChatGPT to write it in 2 minutes
Alternatively (shameless promotion): Use a special-purpose tool I wrote for it, which uses the GPT API https://aicoverletter.me
Life-hack #2: Use ChatGPT to write it in 2 minutes
Alternatively (shameless promotion): Use a special-purpose tool I wrote for it, which uses the GPT API https://aicoverletter.me
Not the hero we deserve, but the hero we need
As awful as the resume process is it has one advantage that the author seems to have ignored - it's 'fair'. It puts everyone in basically the same footing at the start of the hiring process.
Using a system based on recommendations would give popular, attractive, well-connected people an advantage that's unrelated to their skill level. It would make job hopping more beneficial because you'd get to meet and connect with more people.
Maybe it's unreasonable of me, but I slightly suspect the author would prefer recommendation based hiring because it'd benefit them rather than because it'd be a better system for everyone.
Using a system based on recommendations would give popular, attractive, well-connected people an advantage that's unrelated to their skill level. It would make job hopping more beneficial because you'd get to meet and connect with more people.
Maybe it's unreasonable of me, but I slightly suspect the author would prefer recommendation based hiring because it'd benefit them rather than because it'd be a better system for everyone.
Author here. I don't think any of these points are unreasonable.
I think the apparent conflict comes into play when we treat your point and my point like they are mutually exclusive. But they don't have to be - the resume system can be horrific and the alternatives can be bad in other ways, all in one swoop. It would honestly be weirder if it weren't so - it would imply a perfect process.
For what it's worth, I'm not exactly proposing a "system based on recommendations", and I'm not sure how that would really work if I was proposing it. I'm more saying that the kind of treatment people get when they can bypass the resume-first system is much more human - ideally, there would be a fix that would bring the resume-first system up to the nepotistic treatment level, but I don't claim to know what that is.
I think the apparent conflict comes into play when we treat your point and my point like they are mutually exclusive. But they don't have to be - the resume system can be horrific and the alternatives can be bad in other ways, all in one swoop. It would honestly be weirder if it weren't so - it would imply a perfect process.
For what it's worth, I'm not exactly proposing a "system based on recommendations", and I'm not sure how that would really work if I was proposing it. I'm more saying that the kind of treatment people get when they can bypass the resume-first system is much more human - ideally, there would be a fix that would bring the resume-first system up to the nepotistic treatment level, but I don't claim to know what that is.
If you hire one out of 50 applicants, there is an implication that you're at least trying to hire the best 2%, and that there is an employer's market.
That's of course incorrect if every applicant on average makes 100 job applications. That means you're lucky if you get one of those 50 before some other company makes them a better offer, which is why you have to keep a couple of choices open until the papers are signed.
That means there are two open jobs for every applicant (with some fair assumptions).
That's of course incorrect if every applicant on average makes 100 job applications. That means you're lucky if you get one of those 50 before some other company makes them a better offer, which is why you have to keep a couple of choices open until the papers are signed.
That means there are two open jobs for every applicant (with some fair assumptions).
parkinson’s essay on the principle of selection[0] is relevant here. concerning cv submission/job application being a negative signal he says, and I quote:
Heaped on the table before this committee are 483 forms of application, with testimonials attached. All the applicants are Chinese and all without exception have a first degree from Peking or Amoy and a Doctorate of Philosophy from Cornell or Johns Hopkins. The majority of the candidates have at one time held ministerial office in Formosa. Some have attached their photographs. Others have (perhaps wisely) refrained from doing so. The chairman turns to the leading Chinese expert and says, "Perhaps Dr. Wu can tell us which of these candidates should be put on the short list." Dr. Wu smiles enigmatically and points to the heap. "None of them any good," he says briefly. "But how--I mean, why not?" asks the chairman, surprised. "Because no good scholar would ever apply. He would fear to lose face if he were not chosen." "So what do we do now?" asks the chairman. "I think," says Dr. Wu, "we might persuade Dr. Lim to take this post. What do you think. Dr. Lee?" "Yes, I think he might," says Lee, "but we couldn't approach him ourselves of course. We could ask Dr. Tan whether he thinks Dr. Lim would be interested." "I don't know Dr. Tan," says Wu, "but I know his friend Dr. Wong."
Programmer here, who worked as a freelance technical interviewer for the automotive industry in Germany.
I did many interviews, and stopped to read the CVs after a while. I tried to find a pattern between the CV and the candidate's programming skills, but found none. Nothing.
I did many interviews, and stopped to read the CVs after a while. I tried to find a pattern between the CV and the candidate's programming skills, but found none. Nothing.
I know some very underqualified poor performers who also appear to be excellent networkers. I have yet to see them however, get promotions internally based on networking alone.
Trying to get internally promoted is a losing strategy. If you’re trying to develop your career, then all you want is for your next role to be better (and probably pay more) than your last role. Exclusively looking inside your current organisation for that next role is simply limiting your options to some tiny subset of all the potentially good options on the market.
You just want to turn yourself into a good candidate for that next role, you shouldn’t care where you find it. Even if you’re successful at getting internally promoted, there’s a good chance you’re going to accomplish those goals slower than if you’d just looked elsewhere.
You just want to turn yourself into a good candidate for that next role, you shouldn’t care where you find it. Even if you’re successful at getting internally promoted, there’s a good chance you’re going to accomplish those goals slower than if you’d just looked elsewhere.
Another one of these articles written by someone who seems to live in a completely different reality than most people.
> consider that everything the resume is supposed to do [...] is all stuff they are going to do again in phone screens, the interviews, and the reference checks
Not just things you need to do again, but they might even ask you to solve an arbitrary problem you've never seen before in 40 minutes, with someone watching and not helping, knowing your livelihood is on the line if you fail. And they have a hard rule that states you must create a working program, so even if you can express your ideas and make it very clear you'd get to a correct and efficient solution eventually, if it doesn't run in under 40 minutes, you're out. It's a mini coding competition, and you are set up to fail.
I recently got laid off from a job that actually boosted my resume quite nicely, the work made me a specialist that triggered several big name companies to reach out for this niche thing. I was told multiple times that I'd effectively passed 80% of the interview sessions, but their tests, for whether I'd been able to memorize all common algo approaches and my ability to regurgitate them in a short amount of time, were beyond my abilities.
Not just things you need to do again, but they might even ask you to solve an arbitrary problem you've never seen before in 40 minutes, with someone watching and not helping, knowing your livelihood is on the line if you fail. And they have a hard rule that states you must create a working program, so even if you can express your ideas and make it very clear you'd get to a correct and efficient solution eventually, if it doesn't run in under 40 minutes, you're out. It's a mini coding competition, and you are set up to fail.
I recently got laid off from a job that actually boosted my resume quite nicely, the work made me a specialist that triggered several big name companies to reach out for this niche thing. I was told multiple times that I'd effectively passed 80% of the interview sessions, but their tests, for whether I'd been able to memorize all common algo approaches and my ability to regurgitate them in a short amount of time, were beyond my abilities.
I like this writing about the necessary evil of resumes and processes around employment, when have to resort to people not known (cannot find one through network). One amendment:
What kind of bullshit could have been in those 10 submissions that those got prioritized but none of them found suitable enough after the first round of interviews? I do not dare to imagine. And what was the HR thinking while eliminating the 58 other candidates coming up with 10 unsuitable on top? What are their criteria, nice words and pretty bulletpoints? I honestly been worried what kind of organisation will this be to work for based on their high level of selection mistakes, if it is wise accepting a position there. But it turned out most people there live up to the needs of the organization and it is a pretty ok place (no perfect place exists). Even if no real top gets in - get eliminated among the 58 misfortuned not having pretty enogh submission paperwork for the HR's taste - those do could learn to do the job decent enough in the end, apparently. The recruitment could not ruin things too much. : )
> This leaves five candidates - a hand-picked elite, a top 12.5% of qualified candidates.
What kind of bullshit could have been in those 10 submissions that those got prioritized but none of them found suitable enough after the first round of interviews? I do not dare to imagine. And what was the HR thinking while eliminating the 58 other candidates coming up with 10 unsuitable on top? What are their criteria, nice words and pretty bulletpoints? I honestly been worried what kind of organisation will this be to work for based on their high level of selection mistakes, if it is wise accepting a position there. But it turned out most people there live up to the needs of the organization and it is a pretty ok place (no perfect place exists). Even if no real top gets in - get eliminated among the 58 misfortuned not having pretty enogh submission paperwork for the HR's taste - those do could learn to do the job decent enough in the end, apparently. The recruitment could not ruin things too much. : )
I have also found that Jobs Acquired by Submitting Resume are almost always worse than Jobs Acquired Through Network. Which makes sense, as the network jobs mean you usually know at least one person working at the company and are friendly/culturally compatible with that person. And if that person works there, chances are that there will be other similar people.
Author here, and agreed. For different reasons, though - I think that when you've picked someone out of 400 applications, both you and they feel like they got "lucky", as opposed to being the handpicked winner of at least a couple hundred mostly-qualified applicants.
I contrast this most heavily with, say, someone the company has done cold outreach to get in touch with; like, yeah, there's a reason you did the cold outreach, they probably look like a good fit. But more importantly the power dynamic is different - the employer had to go to the applicant and ask for their attention. The applicant feels like something the employer might "lose" if they don't play their hand right, as opposed to someone who should feel honored to take the lower-mid of the payrange.
I contrast this most heavily with, say, someone the company has done cold outreach to get in touch with; like, yeah, there's a reason you did the cold outreach, they probably look like a good fit. But more importantly the power dynamic is different - the employer had to go to the applicant and ask for their attention. The applicant feels like something the employer might "lose" if they don't play their hand right, as opposed to someone who should feel honored to take the lower-mid of the payrange.
Goes without saying for Hacker News, but this seems specific to one industry. I did get hired off of resumé and a phone interview in my first application—but that's nursing, where right now they'll hire anyone who moves. I think the old rules they talk about in interview guides still work, absent any sector-specific distortions.
Good point and this is some of the reason I am getting a bit more serious about open source coding and writing on a blog. Although friends and coworkers are good they tend to work in the kinda places you already worked, so it is harder to make a quantum leap that way.
There is a sentiment in the post that "poor" hiring managers have no other way to weed out the incompetent. At the same time it says that HR functionaries are not even looking at CVs...
It is not a contradiction though, such idiocy is natural for those systems. But the sentiment about "poor" hiring managers is a miss. The system is by design:
https://bitslap.it/blog/posts/playground-it.html#part-i---ma...
It's seems very strange that the resume is not disrupted. The model and format seems ridiculously outdated. What are some startups that have tried to change this? Why didn't they succeed?
The only thing I can come up with is Equalture.com, though it is more about generating more "fairness" between applicants rather than making the UX of applying better
The only thing I can come up with is Equalture.com, though it is more about generating more "fairness" between applicants rather than making the UX of applying better
Resume-based hiring is dehumanising and terrible under any aspect. There is nothing redeeming about it.
There is an incredible number of factors that determine how good a prospective employee is to a company, and none of them can be easily represented with a list of job titles and qualifications. You can find people with impressive resumes and they are terrible employees: lazy, stupid, unmotivated. There is a vast amount of people with unimpressed job history that would be perfect candidates even to work on a very specific piece of technology if they are smart, quick to learn, driven, ambitious, enthusiastic or any other soft-skill.
My best interview is my first, as a 19 year old high school dropout: I must've mentioned that I had played with Linux and knew C and PHP. They asked me something along the lines of "what does ifconfig do?", "can you configure Apache?" and "tell me a little about your projects in C", and got hired. They only needed to know I was able to learn undirected, was passionate about computers in general. Of course this was for a junior position, but still, none of that 3 interviews, whiteboard leetcode bullcrap that is so common nowadays.
tl;dr: Candidates are to their resumes what a chef's meal is to the list of ingredients.
There is an incredible number of factors that determine how good a prospective employee is to a company, and none of them can be easily represented with a list of job titles and qualifications. You can find people with impressive resumes and they are terrible employees: lazy, stupid, unmotivated. There is a vast amount of people with unimpressed job history that would be perfect candidates even to work on a very specific piece of technology if they are smart, quick to learn, driven, ambitious, enthusiastic or any other soft-skill.
My best interview is my first, as a 19 year old high school dropout: I must've mentioned that I had played with Linux and knew C and PHP. They asked me something along the lines of "what does ifconfig do?", "can you configure Apache?" and "tell me a little about your projects in C", and got hired. They only needed to know I was able to learn undirected, was passionate about computers in general. Of course this was for a junior position, but still, none of that 3 interviews, whiteboard leetcode bullcrap that is so common nowadays.
tl;dr: Candidates are to their resumes what a chef's meal is to the list of ingredients.
> Candidates are to their resumes what a chef's meal is to the list of ingredients.
It sounds as though you're saying it's not the list of ingredients, it's what you make of them.
On the contrary, the interesting chefs, you can tell from the list, as there are delightfully unexpected choices and twists on the list.
This absolutely POPS on a resume, and is one of the indicators I look for.
It sounds as though you're saying it's not the list of ingredients, it's what you make of them.
On the contrary, the interesting chefs, you can tell from the list, as there are delightfully unexpected choices and twists on the list.
This absolutely POPS on a resume, and is one of the indicators I look for.
Can you tell me how good my chilli con carne is going to taste? These are the ingredients I use: ground beef, tomatoes, peppers, onions, garlic, red beans, and of course, chilli.
Subpar to average. There is a significant lack of spices in that list.
Well, not everyone cares about passion and doing overtime outside work just to stand out for what is a labour per hour => money transaction.
So that leaves out resumes for the rest of us that actually have a life outside work.
So that leaves out resumes for the rest of us that actually have a life outside work.
Never got a job by submitting my resume. It's always some connection or some recruiter that does more work than just submitting a resume.
[deleted]
In my experience, the article is off base thanks to a fundamentally flawed premise: misuse of resumes by bad companies means don't use it for good companies.
On the contrary, good roles need a good resume (CV) process to cast a wide enough net to find great teammates.
1. The idealistic teenager version of this does exit: at companies that value craft and domain know-how.
2. The ratio is not 10 delusional to 40 qualified, the ratio is 40 delusional to 10 qualified, maybe. (I've reviewed 5 figures of resumes.)
3. A bad company has unqualified screeners, in a disinterested department, as described in the blog. That's indeed terrible. Don't apply there!!!
4. A good company, screening is performed by people with mastery of the area, well qualified to pattern match resumes to the performers on their team. You can often tell from the job descriptions (or your network) when this is true.
5. Bad filter is as described in the article, while a good filter puts all plausible resumes through, regardless of any nonsense in the job description like "8 years of ChatGPT prompt crafting experience required" or "Masters required".
5. In good company, plausibles are given to the tech or team leads hiring who are interested in finding candidates with standout value adds, these generally are not on resumes.
6. This is done not by bullet match for "did this precise thing before" (the rubric from non-domain aka contentless managers) but by understanding candidate attributes (e.g. an attribute to learn new domains quickly) and is tetris-ing a well qualified cloverleaf of attributes for evolving solutions in the problem space -- and being able to see these attributes between the lines of how a dry resume is written.
. . .
Finally, most importantly, the candidate is not making a resume for the company, but for themselves.
As a craftsperson in a domain, it's worth "curating" your CV. CV stands for curriculum vitae which in Latin means "course of life".
From apprentice, through journeyman, to mastery, there is a roadmap, and the as-yet-unwritten portions of the CV are more important than those on the page.
By writing this down for yourself ahead of time, you can chart a course that lands you where you intend, or keeps you on a path you find rewarding. Diff yourself against that path, making intentional corrections as you go.
While at a job, journal the outcomes you delivered for the team, and the company, that made a difference. When you've gathered all the power-ups you need, crystallize them onto the CV, and start your own pattern-matching against the next role on your roadmap. When you find a role (internal or external), go for it.
When you manage yourself proactively this way, and apply to roles at companies that value craft, you're not working for the resume process, the CV process works for you.
On the contrary, good roles need a good resume (CV) process to cast a wide enough net to find great teammates.
1. The idealistic teenager version of this does exit: at companies that value craft and domain know-how.
2. The ratio is not 10 delusional to 40 qualified, the ratio is 40 delusional to 10 qualified, maybe. (I've reviewed 5 figures of resumes.)
3. A bad company has unqualified screeners, in a disinterested department, as described in the blog. That's indeed terrible. Don't apply there!!!
4. A good company, screening is performed by people with mastery of the area, well qualified to pattern match resumes to the performers on their team. You can often tell from the job descriptions (or your network) when this is true.
5. Bad filter is as described in the article, while a good filter puts all plausible resumes through, regardless of any nonsense in the job description like "8 years of ChatGPT prompt crafting experience required" or "Masters required".
5. In good company, plausibles are given to the tech or team leads hiring who are interested in finding candidates with standout value adds, these generally are not on resumes.
6. This is done not by bullet match for "did this precise thing before" (the rubric from non-domain aka contentless managers) but by understanding candidate attributes (e.g. an attribute to learn new domains quickly) and is tetris-ing a well qualified cloverleaf of attributes for evolving solutions in the problem space -- and being able to see these attributes between the lines of how a dry resume is written.
. . .
Finally, most importantly, the candidate is not making a resume for the company, but for themselves.
As a craftsperson in a domain, it's worth "curating" your CV. CV stands for curriculum vitae which in Latin means "course of life".
From apprentice, through journeyman, to mastery, there is a roadmap, and the as-yet-unwritten portions of the CV are more important than those on the page.
By writing this down for yourself ahead of time, you can chart a course that lands you where you intend, or keeps you on a path you find rewarding. Diff yourself against that path, making intentional corrections as you go.
While at a job, journal the outcomes you delivered for the team, and the company, that made a difference. When you've gathered all the power-ups you need, crystallize them onto the CV, and start your own pattern-matching against the next role on your roadmap. When you find a role (internal or external), go for it.
When you manage yourself proactively this way, and apply to roles at companies that value craft, you're not working for the resume process, the CV process works for you.
Very ranty, I’m surprised it got this many upvotes.
sounds like `He who remains`
Most candidates really only submit a resume. The chances of getting to the interview stage with this approach are almost zero.
Because everyone does this, you can easily stand out. Simply answer the following 2 questions briefly in plain English.
1. Why do you want to take this role?
2. Why are you a good fit for this role?
Example:
1. I've read through your website and documentation and are truly inspired by your vision. Especially that you're working and X thing really got my attention as I know that Y and Z are super important for the customer segment you're working on.
2. I have previous experience in this field and wrote an open source library to solve some of the issues you might be facing (link).
Simply out, show interest and explain why you're a good fit.
I've had too many candidates who never checked out our landing page (https://wundergraph.com). We're doing a lot of innovative stuff in the API segment. If you apply for a job with us and you don't have an opinion whether you like what we do or not, it's really hard to gauge interest.
The question I'm asking myself is. Why should I read your CV when you didn't bother skimming through my landing page, docs, or open source repository. What's the purpose of sending a CV when I have to do all the hard work?