Just got hired to make software that ranks candidates based on more dynamic qualities, like the ability to answer basic logic problems or complete a task that the job may require. Could be cool.
I don't want to be mean or anything ( and probably it will go against the HN crowd) but you're part of the problem. Basically it's the reliance on computerized system to assess somebody's skills that is at the root of the problem.
I know it seems horrendous to a lot of people that thinks that computers are the solution to every problem but as of the current state of technology, it just does not work. I have been in the position of an applicant recently and the tests are just plain ridiculous. From the "IQ-Test" at Bloomberg for engineers to the automated "solve our problem and get hired" websites the system is just bloated with these cheap ( and shi* ) solutions.
It's time for companies to put some money on the table to hire real people doing real interviews to candidates. Any company that don't involve somebody at step 1 of the recruitment process to assist you and that claims that "Employees are first!", I say: bullshit!
I disagree that there is a problem. The problem is that you are choosing to apply at places that employ hiring mechanisms that you personally object to.
So I think that you're the problem. Some people appreciate the rigorous screening. If you don't, apply somewhere else.
Well we'll see, but we're designing this specifically to eliminate people who DEFINITELY can't do the job specified and then let the rest of the process be done by actual humans. If you don't let people who can't do the job BS you into an interview, you can afford to do more interviews with a higher confidence of actually finding a suitable candidate.
If I desired not to be civil I'd say "you're part of the problem assuming a tough problem can't be solved for some abstract reason" but since I want to be civil I won't say that.
Comments
Just got hired to make software that ranks candidates based on more dynamic qualities, like the ability to answer basic logic problems or complete a task that the job may require. Could be cool.
I don't want to be mean or anything ( and probably it will go against the HN crowd) but you're part of the problem. Basically it's the reliance on computerized system to assess somebody's skills that is at the root of the problem.
I know it seems horrendous to a lot of people that thinks that computers are the solution to every problem but as of the current state of technology, it just does not work. I have been in the position of an applicant recently and the tests are just plain ridiculous. From the "IQ-Test" at Bloomberg for engineers to the automated "solve our problem and get hired" websites the system is just bloated with these cheap ( and shi* ) solutions.
It's time for companies to put some money on the table to hire real people doing real interviews to candidates. Any company that don't involve somebody at step 1 of the recruitment process to assist you and that claims that "Employees are first!", I say: bullshit!
I disagree that there is a problem. The problem is that you are choosing to apply at places that employ hiring mechanisms that you personally object to.
So I think that you're the problem. Some people appreciate the rigorous screening. If you don't, apply somewhere else.
Well we'll see, but we're designing this specifically to eliminate people who DEFINITELY can't do the job specified and then let the rest of the process be done by actual humans. If you don't let people who can't do the job BS you into an interview, you can afford to do more interviews with a higher confidence of actually finding a suitable candidate.
If I desired not to be civil I'd say "you're part of the problem assuming a tough problem can't be solved for some abstract reason" but since I want to be civil I won't say that.