Hacker News Reader

Comment by 999900000999 | Hacker News Reader

No they don’t.

They waste very large amounts of candidate time on an essay like assignment before you get to talk to someone.

Truth be told they already know from your resume if you’d be worth interviewing. That’s enough , and maybe a OA.

The best process I’ve experienced, was a quick conversion with a few technical questions, then I can start as a contractor. If it works out it works, if it doesn’t that’s ok too.

No need for me to write a long paper, when HR probably took one look at my resume and sent out a rejection.

View on HN

A friend encouraged me to write the paper, even if I didn't submit it, as a means of self-reflecting.

Are we talking about the same thing.

I apply for jobs because I want money. Not to reflect or learn about myself.

It’s just business, even if you do the song and dance to get hired they can still fire you later.

Oxide's process involves submitting writing with various questions about you, what you've done, and what you're looking for in your career. The process of doing so inherently means reflecting on the answers to those questions, and so some people find it a useful exercise.

OK.

But that should be done later in the process. I'd rather an LLM auto-reject my application vs spending 5 hours on a writing exercise.

Think about, I apply to a minimum of 5 jobs per day. If I need to spend 5 hours for each application I'm spending 25 hours a day on job applications. Obviously this isn't possible.

I think that you are (naturally) approaching it from your side, and they're (naturally) approaching it from theirs, and it sounds like it's not a fit. That's a successful outcome for a hiring process.

> I’d rather an LLM auto-reject my application

Be careful what you wish for. You might end up with no writing exercises and a 100% automated rejection rate with no way to figure out why or talk to someone.

Yes obviously you need to choose how to allocate your finite time, that was always true, so think about whether it’s truly effective to apply to so many jobs. You aren’t required to apply to 5 jobs per day, right? You want to maximize your chances of getting 1 job, right? Is it possible that fewer, longer interactions with people (and not LLMs) might increase your chances?

Also consider that getting enough bites on your resume that you have to choose between companies is a great problem to have. Don’t forget that interviews and writing questions also cost the company time, and they’re not asking unless they think there’s a decent chance of success. Nobody is asking anyone to write 5 hours of unique material per application without filtering resumes and talking to candidates a little bit first, so it’s extremely unlikely you could end up with the problem you’re complaining about even if you wanted to.

So instead I wasted 5 hours without a way to figure out why I was rejected.

Say the first step was an OA. I fail my OA and move on with my day, or I pass and we both know I’m minimally qualified.

I just think there are better ways to do an initial filter.

You knew before you did any writing there was a good chance you’d be rejected, right? Why did you do it anyway? Why did you apply to this company? Did it have anything to do with their reputation? Or salary?

Lots of people are minimally qualified, and that’s not what they want, so their initial filter works for them. At least that should be your first assumption, no? Better depends on perspective, right? If you think you know a universally better way, what’s stopping you from building it? (If it’s money, be aware that money is available for people who know better ways, but you will have to do a lot more than 5 hours of writing to get it, and you’ll have to be okay with rejection.)

> I apply for jobs because I want money. Not to reflect or learn about myself.

We are not the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com