logoalt Hacker News

shmattyesterday at 7:25 PM8 repliesview on HN

if you've ever been through a Meta loop (and their method is to cast an extremely wide net, so chances are you have), you've seen how inefficient their loop can be for long term success

6-7 38* minute interviews, while the interviewee is trying to squeeze in showcasing their skills and experience, the interviewer is obsessed with figuring out a rigid set of pre-determined "signals"

Once these candidates actually start work, their success in the team is a complete coinflip

* 38 minutes = 45 minute scheduled - 2 minute intro - 5 minute saved for candidate questions at the end


Replies

nobleachyesterday at 7:28 PM

That wasn't my experience at all. I had a recruiter screen where she asked me some technical questions. I then had a longer discussion, then a code screen, then an arch-deep-dive. The entire process was very professional and EVERY person came off like they really wanted me to succeed. (Sure it's an act but it's a very helpful act when you're in the hot seat)

My intervews were in 20202/2021. Perhaps things have changed?

show 7 replies
-warrenyesterday at 8:06 PM

So let me ask this. What is the perfect mix of inerviews and durations?

If you ask my blue collar friends, the answer is one and however long it takes to drink three beers.

If you ask any married person, the onboarding process (courtship) may last YEARS and consist of many interviews (dates).

As an EM, ive always struggled with this one. Im about to invest some serious coin and brainspace for you, so I tended towards a max of 3-6 total hours and a takehome assignment.

As an IC, I preferred short and sweet. Heres my portfolio (github), heres my resume. Lets make this work. Maybe 1-2 hours; its not like we're getting married.

The happy place has to be in there somewhere. Whats your take?

show 2 replies
gcamposyesterday at 8:58 PM

The short interview time helps keeping the interview process focused on high signal questions/discussions. That is better than a 1h where 1/3 of the process is a bunch of soft balls.

What I don’t like about them is how “dry” and mechanical the interview feels

yodsanklaiyesterday at 10:12 PM

I believe they optimize for fairness and consistency. They interview a huge number of people from very different backgrounds so they need a standardized process. It's not perfect but I can understand the logic. And there's team matching phase if the candidate pass the interview, it's not a random allocation.

abkolantoday at 8:53 AM

This was exactly my experience too. The interviewer seemed more focused on checking boxes on the grading rubric than actually understanding the design discussion. They barely engaged with alternative approaches.

The interviewer was also very hard for me to understand, which made the interview harder than it should have been.

I am ESL too, so this is not about someone’s background. The problem is communication in an interview where both sides need to understand each other clearly.

From what I have seen on Blind, others have had similar experiences.

singpolyma3yesterday at 9:59 PM

Last time I talked them they also wanted an NDA just to interview, which was just insulting and dumb so I kept my existing big tech job instead

whatsupdogyesterday at 7:36 PM

[flagged]

show 1 reply
chisyesterday at 7:41 PM

What is your point exactly lol. You'd prefer longer interviews? More, less?