fecak

20 year recovering recruiter here (now more focused on providing services to help job seekers).

I think at least some of the animosity job seekers have for recruiters is that they may feel recruiters are designing these types of esoteric interview questions and exercises. The overwhelming majority of recruiters are entirely incapable of designing them because they lack the technical skills (myself included).

The recruiter is primarily responsible for identifying a (hopefully) qualified candidate and managing the hiring process along to ensure the "candidate experience" doesn't get in the way of a hire being made. The recruiter might be just as frustrated with that hiring process and the methods as the candidate, but probably has little control over it.

If we want to end these types of interviews, the people to change them are engineering managers. If the engineering manager wanted to end whiteboard exercises and trivial questions on minute details, I assure you the recruiter wouldn't be against it.

Whether to stay or leave is obviously an important decision that can impact your career, and you may not want to base it on something as simple as the things you've mentioned here.

Of the things you mention, there seem to be two primary concerns.

One is that you definitely won't get a raise until a new round of funding comes in, and even if that funding does arrive I assume a raise is not a guarantee. We obviously aren't aware of your status or current and past performance. We also aren't aware of how much you are making now, and whether that amount is perhaps at the higher end or lower end of market rate already.

Two is that the company seems to be having at least some financial concerns.

You've also told us "they anticipate that the round will close over the next couple of months, if not weeks". That sounds optimistic. Being that the next salary review isn't for a couple weeks, it sounds as if this entire thing could be about nothing.

If you like your job enough where not getting a raise is OK for at least a few months, you should stay.

Beyond liking your job, are you still learning? Are you becoming better at what you do year after year by staying there? If the answer is "no" to either of those questions, you should probably leave regardless of salary raises and free champagne.

You should always be prepared for the worst, of course, so if an event (layoff, closure) were to happen you should always want to be in a position to start looking for work quickly.

I don't think suggesting a 4 day work week due to an incomplete salary review is a good option. That suggests that you may have anticipated a 20% raise, which isn't all that realistic. Making unrealistic demands of a cash-strapped company could be a quick way to a layoff.

I'm not sure at this point it's even relevant to ask the founders any questions. They seem to be forthcoming about things - it's not like they told you there will be no salary reviews the day before they were scheduled to happen, and if they have been trustworthy in the past you should have no reason to doubt their honesty now about their expected timeline for the next round to close.

When should one start looking for jobs? There are lots of reasons. If you are not fairly compensated for what you do and there are no other 'upsides' to your employment that make staying a good option. When you aren't learning or challenged by what you do. When you feel work is having a consistent negative impact on other parts of your life. When your company clearly makes decisions that do not consider the best interests of their employees.

Good luck to you.

If your looking to talk this through live with someone and bounce ideas about career and such, I do coaching for lots of job seekers (also resume writing, bios, etc.) and have worked with a number of HN'ers over the past few years. Much of my coaching is just asking the right questions to help clients arrive at their own conclusions.

If interested, my contact info is in my profile.

Really impressive work. I'm a resume writer, career coach, and tech recruiter with nearly 20 years working for startups, and this is the kind of thing that definitely will get you in the door at most employers. As an FYI, I know your resume page probably isn't your "real" resume, but you can definitely move your degree down to the bottom now that you have so much experience.

In my experience, it's much easier to suggest that some element of the comp package or expectations that wasn't salary (benefits contribution, 401k, options, PTO, work hours expectations, bonus) didn't align with your expectations instead of claiming the role was much more than anticipated.

Saying the role was bigger may also be received as the person being somewhat intimidated by the role, which doesn't instill confidence in the hiring firm.

Looks like this article is dated a couple weeks ago, which surprised me in that the article neglects to mention the rather popular movement and trend of cities in the US making it illegal to ask for your current salary.

I believe it started with the state of Massachusetts in 2016, with Philadelphia and New York City following suit this year.

One can expect this trend may continue, and will make this question (and this post) somewhat obsolete.

In my experience it's not a high percentage, but enough numbers overall to see some enterprise veteran discrimination. It's often diagnosed as ageism, though I don't think that's the case as I do see several 40-50 somethings with more diverse backgrounds landing in startups without issue.

The enterprise filter in my experience gets stronger as the enterprise dev stays in that space.

As an example, a dev with say 4 years of experience overall that happens to be working at a bank who might have had some solid internship and side projects upon graduation won't be 'locked out' to the same degree as someone with 15 years at that same bank. Someone with 25 years at that bank who worked on very similar projects may be seen as unemployable by most startups.

That junior dev might not have any kind of preference or necessity for process, but just wound up at the bank after graduation. It's these devs that probably suffer.

The person who stayed 25 years (ageism aside) probably did so for a reason, and some will assume that the reason was process and predictability in their work. Someone that stayed for that long and didn't get bored is probably going to be passed over by most startups.

The piece also says "Programmers who used Java or C# (when interviewing with us) go on to pass interviews with companies at half the rate of programmers who use Ruby or JavaScript."

I might be reading that wrong, but I took that as "Java/C# devs failed company interviews 2x Ruby/JS devs".

No?

This is really good advice, and something I've advised to countless devs over the years. You can overcome some of that stigma by doing a side project in another language or even something outside the realm (like an IoT thing). Many Java devs will go with Scala, but I'd even try to go deeper and perhaps do a couple side projects and shift to something like Python or a Lisp (which often gets 'cred' points from startups).

I've seen quite a bit of 'discrimination' against enterprise devs by startups over the past ten years as a recruiter (and JUG president for 15 years), and the data in this piece regarding Java/C# devs failing more interviews than counterparts is at least a little surprising.

I generally attributed the discrimination to be more about dev culture than tech skills, whereas the enterprise dev maybe with a few years at a bank/insurance/pharma company might be too set in the traditionally slow pace in regulated industries or bureaucracies to adapt to the stereotype of a fast-paced startup. I never felt that startup leaders might actually think of them as lesser-skilled, and it wasn't discussed - the feedback on enterprise candidates would often be simply 'not a good fit' before an interview would even occur. I was always a bit uncomfortable with that reaction, as clearly there are many good enterprise devs of high quality regardless of what tools they use.

That's refreshing to hear that you've got some experienced team members in place or on call, and although career advice is clearly not 'one-size-fits-all' I've learned over the years that there are certainly many pieces of advice that can be applied on a regular basis without much need for customization (negotiation tactics perhaps) which is why AI will be quite useful to you.

Happy to discuss with you, will email directly. Again, good luck!

I also provide private career advisory/coaching and resume services to many in the tech sector, and I'm a mod on a Reddit sub that answers compsci career questions (r/cscareerquestions), so this caught my eye.

The biggest question I generally have with services like this is "who is providing the advice?". We have an issue in our Reddit sub, where there is little transparency (obviously due to anonymous accounts) as to whether your career advice is coming from someone with twenty years of industry experience or an intern. I think the source of the info is relevant, as the recipient may want to weigh the advice based on the source's experience.

It appears Boost is using some AI that might automate some of the response, which will hopefully provide some good answers and perhaps have a few kinks with advice that doesn't quite apply.

As a bit of advice for the founder (saw you commenting here), perhaps a bit of info on the source of the advice would be useful to users.

Best of luck with the service, and feel free to reach out.

I'm just seeing this now (I just got an email from someone that mentioned it), but thanks to everyone for the kind words about my services and I'd be happy to take a look at your resume (or anyone else that might like a 2nd set of eyes) and offer suggestions for services.

I've written resumes for several HN clients through my company Resume Raiders (http://resumeraiders.com). I've been in recruiting for startups since 1998 and focus a bit more now on writing, which includes resumes/bios/LinkedIn as well as coaching on job search strategy stuff as well.

I'm also running a 15% off discount this week with code 'thegraduate' for anyone who may be interested.

Good luck in your job search, regardless.

Resume writer here to add that the STAR technique applies to resume writing as well. For any accomplishment on a resume, it's ideal to have these four items covered in at least some detail.

OP is talking about a jump to entrepreneurship. Why would an entrepreneur talk to a recruiter about their salary?

If OP is considering a move to contract software development work, your advice could be relevant to OP not offering his/her hourly contract rate to third party recruiters who ask for it, but most independent contractors have an hourly rate because they know the market for their skills.

As someone who writes resumes/CVs for people and has had a long career as a tech recruiter, this was interesting on a number of levels.

Lots of resume writers don't even bother with summary statements, but I always use them, and my reasoning is that it is an opportunity to set the lens through which the rest of the document is consumed. If we use certain words in the summary that stick with the reader, they will apply those words to your experience in an almost subliminal way.

I don't know that tone is something I look for, at least not consciously - unless the tone is clearly and overwhelmingly aggressive or overly passive.

One thing that I think this summary leaves out is quantifying the skills - how senior are you?

When I look at the writer's blog, there are mentions of lots of seemingly interesting home automation projects and "lifehacking" type things that differentiate the writer from many in the industry. A mention of those things (tech hobbyist with project experience in IoT and home automation) would get my attention much more in a summary than tone and confidence.

Funny enough, I'm a recruiter by trade. We walk an impossible line with candidates, particularly when demand is so high (candidates care a lot less when the economy is down, and I used to get job seekers acting like my best friend in the early 2000s).

If it's "too generic" the recruiter is dismissed as being lazy and spamming - "too personal" and the recruiter is fake.

I do understand what you mean and have seen recruiters that try to get a bit too chummy. By relating to someone, I might mention if we went to the same college or if I know people from their company or group they belong to. I'm not going to ask about their kids or spouse unless it's someone I know well.

As someone who coaches job seekers, I couldn't help but notice that these are identical tips I give to my clients when sending out a contact to a potential new employer. Most "cold" email techniques can be boiled down to "just don't make them feel cold".

I've got ~20 years of recruiting for startups, write resumes (and profiles, etc), and coach job seekers. 50 apps and 15 interviews isn't a bad result in most cases, so you seem relatively effective in getting interviews. Whatever you are doing to get in is working.

Sometimes the resume "oversells" the applicant. I wonder if they are expecting someone a bit more knowledgeable and skilled based on how you present yourself. This is just a guess of course, but do you feel the resume truly represents (and does not overstate) your accomplishments?

How about price? You say you've worked for 4 "brands", so I'd expect you are paid well. Maybe they all like you, but not as much as the others when comparing price and experience of others.

Your mention accent, so that is obviously at least on your mind. Doesn't sound like a huge factor if you're making it onsite 50%.

These problems can be tricky. Stay at it, and maybe ask a past interviewer for some helpful feedback. They will likely be reluctant to give it to you (legal reasons, nothing to gain but goodwill), but worth a shot.

Good luck.

As my background is in recruiting (which is quite helpful in resume writing), this is well put overall. A resume writers is just trying to position you as best as possible to get in the door, whereas a recruiter typically is just trying to get everyone in the door.

The thing I like about resume writing and coaching is that it's 100% focused on helping an individual job seeker, and there are no misaligned incentives.

To clarify "resume and coaching clients", I'm a resume writer, and I also do quite a bit of coaching/consulting one-on-one for people (mostly software engineers) on career topics. Job search strategies, how to position themselves for a next level in a career, etc.

I'm not a "resume coach", and I'm also not sure what one would do if they exist. I'm a resume writer, and I also coach.

When writing LinkedIn profiles for my resume and coaching clients, I advise them to turn endorsements "off". Under the Skills section is a "Adjust Endorsement Settings" listing that you can click to turn it off.

Endorsements tend to be just extra noise with all those pictures, and on many profiles there is rather important information (education, projects, etc.) below the skills section. You don't want your reader getting lost in the endorsements before getting to some useful info.

My answer would depend on several factors.

Has she ever tried coding, and if so does she see herself enjoying it as something she'd be doing several hours a day?

What is her reason for an interest in programming? Is it an interest in tech, solving big problems with tech, money, something else?

Would she be OK knowing that the job search for a bootcamp grad with no prior coding experience may be rather challenging (many grads go to work for the bootcamp itself, which is mutually beneficial as it boost placement stats while also giving the grad a job)?

How is her financial situation? Can she absorb a hit?

Is she incredibly bright and dedicated to the point of potentially being able to enter the field based on n months of self-directed education for free (MOOCs, online tutorials, videos, books, etc)?

The question is a bit more complex than it seems.

I have a bit of a different theory on this, based on my experience as a recruiter for almost 20 years. I should clarify that I don't even ask for current salary anymore in dialogue with my candidates.

If you know your current market value, there is no harm in providing your current salary.

As a real-world example (and a bit of an edge case used to illustrate the point clearly), if you know the typical salary for an entry-level developer in Philadelphia is 70K a year, and $NEWGRAD is currently making 35K while working during school, saying "I'm currently making 35K and looking for 70K" is entirely appropriate, as both sides are aware that is the going rate for entry-level developers in Philly. You can't offer NEWGRAD 38K and expect him/her to accept the job.

This applies to anyone, whether you are overpaid or underpaid in your market. If you have strong data on what the market will bear for your services, whether you make half of that figure or twice that figure currently has little bearing on your actual market value.

The challenge is that most people do not have that data, and it's tough to figure out for many. As much as people hate recruiters, an experienced and specialized recruiter should be pretty good at telling you what your market value is - and most should be willing to provide this info to you without any strings attached.

Based on my own recruiting practice and my tendency to allow (encourage) most of my candidates and clients to negotiate directly much more than most other recruiters, I tend to find that candidates who are the most dodgy about their expectations or history are more likely to face a more difficult negotiation from the client.

People who are honest and transparent are perhaps viewed differently by employers than those who fight the question.

I think employers appreciate a healthy negotiation as long as it is done in good faith, but I think the value of being transparent in the negotiation may outweigh any benefits of secrecy, based anecdotally of course.

Philadelphia just passed a very similar law, which goes into effect in a month or two I believe.

Most of my responses do mention that they did so because of the attention to detail in the message. Even the ones that are well-crafted still don't get much response. I envision that they're deleted by most people unless they are actively looking or pretty set on doing so rather soon.

Being an agency recruiter in 2017 is becoming impossible in that fewer and fewer people are even willing to talk to you, which is one reason I've diversified into resumes and coaching. I have almost 20 years in the industry, led a large successful users group for 15 years, have published tons of content for tech pros (often critical of recruiters), and have a pretty solid reputation in the industry, I write targeted and friendly approaches (no surprise calls at your desk), and I still have difficulty getting responses from people. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for people who don't have my 'cred' with developers, but the signal to noise makes most people filter out all messages.

So for the most part, I've stopped reaching out to new candidates. Outreach is mostly futile, so my time is better spent doing other things to try and get potential candidates to come to me instead. It goes completely against what recruiting is built upon (always be recruiting, recruit everybody, source, smile and dial, etc.), but when people approach me the outcomes are much more positive.

When I got into recruiting (circa 1998), the primary skill of a recruiter was just identifying potential candidates. There was no LinkedIn, nobody had websites, no social media. The skill was calling into a company and finding out who the Java developers were by navigating different people, and in my case I did this without lying to anyone (there was rusing, but no outright lies).

Now identifying people is ridiculously easy (identifying actual talent is a little different), and so easy in fact that we've turned into an industry of spammers. This model doesn't seem sustainable, and I expect agency recruiters will continue to be replaced by better systems. Nobody seems to have gotten it just right to this point, but some are getting close.

The problem is that perhaps 75% of the people who say it are incorrect. There are a handful of trite items on a high percentage of resumes (team player, communicator, able to work in high pressure, etc.) that are virtually ignored - nobody has ever brought someone in for interview because they wrote "I'm a good communicator".

Generally I'll assume you're a good communicator until you show otherwise.

We all understand that it's often highly complex if not impossible for most devs to quantify an accomplishment. It's easy for some things to be quantified obviously - downloads, traction - though those aren't exclusive to engineering (could be marketing).

Scalability numbers and measurable performance improvements are relatively common. So if you built something that is able to handle n requests maybe.

The amount of revenue generated by a feature is clearly tough - but you might be able to find out new subscribers since the feature was introduced. Even if you can't, just saying you built a certain feature is probably enough in most cases.

It really boils down to unique, one-off accomplishments for me. Specificity. That code that runs millions of times - tell me the product name, what that product does, what your code does, and what tools you used to build it. Even if you can't point to a quantifiable figure, the specificity gives you some credibility.