Hacker News Reader

> I'm beginning to think that the industry somehow settled on this approach not so much as a skills verification process but, by making the process so onerous on the candidate, talent retention is a lot easier.

There are plenty of applicants who just can't do the job, and the cost of restarting the search all over again is high. It's important for a team to vet their new hires.

View on HN

> applicants who just can't do the job

While that definitely matches my observations, the current interview grind:

a) filters out people who can do the job too

and

b) somehow also manages not to filter out people who can't, either.

Is that avoidable though? It's not perfect but I'm not convinced any of the alternatives are any better.

I’ve had interviews where I implemented a small feature on an existing application. It didn’t take any longer than your typical hour-long algorithmic implementation interview. Given that we don’t have post-hire data on any of these practices, my hypothesis is the one that most closely resembles the actual work would give the best signal as to whether that person would be able to do the job or not.

I agree that style of interview can be better. I think FAANG companies don't use this style because it's not selective enough and it requires special questions for every role.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com