Slashdot Mirror
Do You Tell a Job Candidate How Badly They Did?
skelter asks: "I have been lamenting with friends in the industry about interviewing woes and the candidates that we find. Consider a hypothetical job candidate comes in after some how making it through screening. In the team technical interview they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is he (or she) not as adequate as he thinks he is, but has demonstrated that he is a danger to any code base. Do you tell them? Quietly step away, usher them out and say nothing? Play with them on the whiteboard the way your cat plays with injured mice? Should you leave them as their own warning to others? Is there any obligation to guide them to gaining real experience? Can you give them any advice or is it all liability?"
I say this for two reasons. There's a genuinely nice kind of feedback, no feedback, and a vicious kind too. If I interviewed someone and they weren't up to scratch for whatever reason, I could say that they're not up to scratch for what I want and I don't need to give a reason. I could be more specific, but only when it suits me, the employer. They haven't got the experience I need, I could tell them that. Not suited to the job? I could tell them that too. I can be as vague as I want, it's my choice. Maybe their asking salary is too high. These are all reasons I could genuinely give to a candidate when rejecting them. Would I be specific if they were a threat to my codebase? No. And if I was a complete dick, I'd just reject applications with no feedback whatsoever, not even a rejection letter. They're applying to me, I don't owe them anything, right?
Most of my job applications in the past have never got a response. It's a lot easier if you don't want to employ / deal with someone to simply ignore them after the failed interview etc. There's no obligation to respond to every application you get with helpful tips for next time. If you get as far as interview, it's nice to know why you didn't succeed but you shouldn't expect it.
As for playing with them like your cat plays with injured mice, I don't want to even apply for your company. What the hell? If you're asking about liability, that might be a sticking point. Or, more seriously, how do you think telling an applicant the reason for not getting the job would make you liable? Unless you don't employ people who are black, disabled, female and so on as a matter of course. If you told someone they were the best damn whatever you ever saw, and afterwards they didn't get a job as a whatever, maybe - just maybe you could be liable. It would be very, very weak though.
As a company, you don't owe anyone an explanation, at all in most countries. So long as you're doing things in accordance with law anyway.
Do whatever is standard for your organization when you decide not to hire someone. Doing anything else, from throwing their resume in the trash the next day to telling them that they should brush up on skill X, could be seen as litigation fodder.
Also, don't post on slashdot about it, he may be incompetent, but he may still read slashdot.
You thank them for coming in, validate their ticket, and hope you never see them again.
You should definitely not say anything to this prospective employee. I am not a lawyer, but the reason that these interviews are setup in such a manor that the interviewer is not the person telling the interviewee that they do not get the job is for legal reasons. Telling them this would potentially open up your company to a lawsuit (frivolous or otherwise). This is not to mention the hot water you could be in for stepping around HR in the interview process.
You may feel you have an ethical obligation to set this guy straight, but you also have an ethical obligation to your company to not expose them to a potential lawsuit (or to bad PR from this guy telling others what you have said). Also, as crass as this may sound, would this action result in increasing shareholder value for your company? Professional ethics requires that you at least consider that question before taking an action such as this.
It sounds like your heart is in the right place for wanting to tell this guy the truth, but really it isn't your job. It's the job of this guy's professors in school (through grades), and the job of his colleagues when he does land a job (through peer review or otherwise) to tell him that he is not as good as he thinks he is. Besides, if someone is that full of them self, do you really believe he would listen and not take offense?
A lot of employers are not even contacting you AT ALL after the interview. I mean, I can understand why you can't contact everyone that sends in a resume, but jeeze... if you've shown enough interest to interview a person, you should at least tell them that they DIDN'T get the job.
There's a story about Art Rooney, long-time owner of an American football franchise in Pittsburgh -- the Steelers. He had to fire his quarterback, who wasn't getting the job done. As the QB was leaving, Rooney saw him from his limo and shouted at him: "I hope you become the greatest QB who ever lived!"
The QB's name? Johnny Unitas.
If I've learned nothing else in life, it's that building good relationships with people will get you further than anything else. I've also learned that it's important to serve as a mentor to people.
If you tell them in a kindly manner that they're not applying for a job they're qualified for, and that they should modify their job searches to meet their existing skill sets, you saved them tons of job-hunting trouble. (If you express it well and they still don't pay you any heed, it's their own damned fault.)
Having been on both sides of that interview table, I know how much it matters to that individual. And both your personal success and your company's success depend on the relationships you build.
The key thing about building relationships is that you have to have that function activated all the time; you can't just turn it on selectively. If you're selective, you become a two-faced suck-up, and people will know that's what you are -- to say nothing of the opportunities you'll miss when you treat someone like shit and they one day turn out to be big-time.
Every person who ever succeeded faced rejection at some point by someone else. Be damned sure that they remember those things. They remember who gave them assistance along the way, and those who did not.
Moreover, when that one rejectee does succeed, and tells all his admirers and fans about that time you shot him down for a job, is he going to talk about how you helped steer him in the right direction, or how you were an asshole?
Don't be that asshole. Be like Art Rooney. Help the candidate out.
...I would love to get feedback from employers. It's too bad that we live in such a litigious society where you can't even give advice to people who don't make the cut.
"What are you doing looking for work if you can't handle rejection?"
People who don't deal with rejection well have bills to pay too, you know.
First off, once they're rejected there is zero reason to spend another second more on them.
That opinion is just plain wrongheaded, and I'll tell you why.
Even if the candidate doesn't get the job because they weren't qualified, you want them to be excited about the company. It's good PR for *you* and that most certainly is a good reason to treat your candidates respectfully.
If they still like your company even though they didn't get the job, they will direct other people they know to you (many of whom may be more skilled than the person you turned away), and they may even try again down the road when they have more experience themselves.
You may not realize this, but even developers and other technical people are social animals (no matter how much we sometimes deny it) and word gets around pretty fast. The bad companies get pointed out to friends who point them out to their friends (and on down the line). That's something we all know too well. However, the other case is also true - the GOOD companies get pointed out too.
Treat your candidates poorly (and treating them as a disposable commodity that doesn't deserve "another second more" is treating them poorly), and after a while, you will only get poor candidates.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
> Second, from an employer's perspective, it may in the narrow self-interest of the company for such a person to go be a drain on its competitors. Where's the rational economic incentive to discourage that?
:)
He COULD go to work for one of your vendors...
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
1. You might be wrong. Maybe what you think is important is really not the key factor in other jobs that are related. For example there are many very successful VB shops, but few Java and C# people out there who will give them the time of day. And programming techniques and methodologies vary widely.
:)
2. The candiate may have had a bad day. I know I have had some bad ones, where I was tongue-tied on occasion and just did not see what my interviewer (or customer) was getting at, though it was clear as daylight later.
3. There are misunderstandings. People hear one word, and understand another. Accents, culture, word usage vary widely and interviews are usually too short to establish contexts and get used to one another.
Once we hired a guy who interviewed brilliantly, even had fanstastic code samples (impresive video games he had written on a basic PC - that later turned out to be very buggy). After a year we concluded that he could never write enough "if" statements to special case his bugs out of existence, and he would never be able to tackle problems in any other way. But we missed it in the interview.
Basically hiring people is risky business
One time we had a candidate that looked good on paper, but when we brought him in to meet with the team, it was oil and water. Very badly. This guy was absolutely the wrong personality for the rest of the team even though he brought the technical goods.
He emailed us and asked why he hadn't gotten the position. We made the mistake of politely explaining what our issues with him were. He used that explanation to kick off some sort of lawsuit against our company.
I actually have no idea how it ultimately turned out. HR told us never to do that again, legal took charge of the matters with every expectation to fight this tooth and nail (especially to avoid a precedent against our company). I presume it's either still outstanding, he lost, or he gave up, because I think I would have heard if it had gone against us.
If someone asks us how they did in an interview now (and we're not planning on offering them a job), it's, "Well, we have a lot of candidates to examine, we'll contact you if we're interested in a second interview or need more information. If you have questions about your performance in the interview, we suggest you contact a career counselor who is better equipped and has the appropriate training to answer questions like that."
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Let the record show that Sean McLachlan:
Is addicted to crack.
Fucks his mom.
Can't program worth a shit.
Is a fucking idiot.
I'm too lazy to make an account, but do you see how that works?
Asshole.
How did you look him up in newsgroups? Using his REAL name and REAL email address?
If he really posted his REAL name and REAL email address on public newsgroups, he should never be a programmer anyway.
You start believing crap from people less able then yourself because they have a job and you don't. I've seen very able people give up looking and take jobs in different feilds because each rejection makes them think they are less capable.
Then went on to state "Candidates with 7 years or more of commercial IT experience are unlikely to be considered by this particular organisation".
Depending on how sweet the job sounded - Just whittle your experience down to the upper end of their range (some might call that "lying", but I've heard (IANAL) that employers can sue for everything they've paid you if you outright lie about your qualifications, so you might want to avoid outright lies; You can say a lot without actually lying, though).
Do they want six years of Java? Well, if you worked a decade in "general IT" doing mostly Java, just "conservatively" pro-rate your actual time spent coding to get somewhere around 5.5 years experience. In the example you give, what exactly counts as "commercial?" Plenty of room for interpretation.
That works the other way as well, BTW, but I'll warn all those hoping to get a "better" job by "overestimating" - Even if you make it through the interview, you can fake stupidity; you can't fake competence.
Most likely, you won't want to stay there anyway. Companies that post upper limits usually have serious problems (either they don't want to pay for more experience, or management has so little clue they fear for their own jobs). But if you need to put food on the table next week and you can either "underestimate" or starve - Screw 'em. You can put up with a lot, short-term, for a paycheck.
I never tell a rejected candidate how badly they did. First off, once they're rejected (assuming they're really rejected rather "reply hazy, ask again later"), there is zero reason to spend another second more on them.
Yep. And there's zero reason to keep old people around too. No use to society.
The lesser reason is that they deserve some help in their job seeking, given that they have gone to the trouble of attending the interview.
But reason #1: I want to see how they respond to friendly advice. I don't want to hire people who can't take advice.
Consider that the problem could be you. When I've been "corrected" on coding problems in the past; it typically indicated that the interviewer was asking the wrong questions. Don't expect people to write perfect error-checking, choose your favorite algorithm, naming convention, ect.
For example, I once had to write an algorithm that had to handle money. I chose a slow and reliable algorithm, and the interviewer chastised me to not writing the fastest once possible. (He never told me he was looking for speed.) When I politley explained that I always choose a reliable algorithm that can be replaced with a fast one, as needed, he refused to listen to me, and probably thought that I was a risk to his code base.
In another internview, I was chastised for not performing extensive (and redundant) input checking. Typically, in whiteboard coding where the goal is to demonstrate an algorithm, one does not worry about minor details. Again, the interviewer probably though that I was a risk to his code base because my first reaction to his problem wasn't to follow his error-checking style.
So, perhaps instead of correcting someone's code, ask them why they wrote it the way they did. The answer to, "Why did you choose a slow algorithm?" or "Why aren't you performing null checking?" could be valid because the interviewer thinks you're looking for something else.
No, I will not work for your startup
It can be counterproductive and depressing. I had HR people say to me - "we didn't hire you becuae we wanted someone who knows about somewidget" and then I correct the way they pronounce it or some other glaring error that showed they didn't understand the selection criteria. There is no way you can still get the job in this situation even if the decision is wrong since it makes the contact person look incompetant - if they have already told others you do not have the job so they can't go back on it. If recruitment agencies or HR is not involved it can be a different story.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
On the other hand, a lot of the time you'd just be inviting the person to come back with, "Ah, great! So if I go learn more about XYZ, then I'm hired?" Maybe you can't really fully grok this until you've been on the hiring side for a while, but most often the lack of a particular skill or expertise is not the problem in and of itself. It's an indication of deeper problems, which are not usually easy (or even possible) to give people constructive feedback on without taking lots of time talking it over with them.
For example, if I'm interviewing an engineer who claims to have both Java and C++ experience, one of my typical initial easy questions is, "Tell me some of the differences between the Java and C++ object models." The ultimate point of that question is not to find out how much you know about the differences between Java and C++. If your answer goes no further than describing which keywords are used in which language, then chances are you aren't the type who likes to dig beneath the surface of the tools you use and think about why things work the way they do. And if you give me a really thorough answer without having to stop and think about it, it tells me you probably know what you're talking about, at which point I dispense with most of the other easy questions on my list.
The trouble is, if someone completely flubs that question (and I don't get the sense it's just due to nerves or whatever) then what am I supposed to tell them? "Sorry, come back when you're more inquisitive" doesn't exactly work as constructive criticism. And "Sorry, you don't know the difference between these object models" is even less useful because that was never the point of the question to begin with -- and what's more, it implies that if only they had skimmed that chapter of their "Java for C++ Programmers" book the night before, they'd be walking away with a job offer.
It sucks to be turned down for a job without knowing why. I have very smart friends to whom that happens over and over again and they find it intensely frustrating. But at the same time, the "why" is not always easy to describe, and is even less easy to describe in a way that doesn't come off rude or condescending and that doesn't give people false hope. And of course as an interviewer, you're trying to fill a job position, which probably means that every minute spent helping out a rejected candidate is one you're not spending reading the next resume in the stack on your desk.
I've been in the position of not getting a position several times, the form "sorry you have not been successful at this time" letter is one of the most annoying things in the world. I want to know why I wasn't successful. Did my interview technique suck? Did I lack confidence? Was I presenting a bad attitude? Was I plain under qualified for the role? Was I over qualified? OK that last one has probably never been a reason for me, but you get the idea. There are so many reasons why you might not get a job it would be nice if they'd narrow it down.
Knowing what's wrong helps you to address the problem. If you're aiming for roles that are above your ability you need to know, so you can aim lower. If you lack confidence - as I know I do; one employer did have the decency to tell me that was why they decided not to hire me, even though I got through the HR interview, tech interview and the second sift - it's moderatly annoying, but at least it means you know you're not unqualified for that kind of role, you just need to work on presenting a more confidence persona.
If the candidate refuses to accept the reason then it really should be their problem, not the company's. Unfortunatly giving someone a reason as to why you didn't hire them, especially those with a bad attitude, just gives them an excuse to blame you. But to be honest, they're probably going to try and blame you anyway.
It always kind of amused me that, if you apply for a civilian role at Essex Police, and you're registered disabled, you're guaranteed an interview and will also get a debrief on your interview if you're not succesful. Of course they're only doing it so that they can't be accused of descrimination. Which is exactly why other employers won't give you a reason.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
First off, once they're rejected (assuming they're really rejected rather "reply hazy, ask again later"), there is zero reason to spend another second more on them.
Building relationships is key to business success, and today's losers have a way of turning into tomorrow's winners. They tend to be highly motivated.
That does not mean you have any obligation to candidates who are clearly not qualified at the current time. But history is full of people who could only get jobs a lowly patent clerks and yet wind up revolutionizing our understanding of the universe. Or who drop out of university and found companies that change industries.
Not every loser grows up to be a winner, but enough do, and they are hard enough to recognize, that it would be extremely foolish to say that you have zero reason to spend another second on someone. epsilon reason, maybe. But not zero.
The rational incentive to help others is so obvious that it hardly needs pointing out, but one place to start is: do you want to live in a world where there are people who help others? If so, there is exactly one way of ensuring that you do. Think about it for long enough and you'll figure out what it is. And companies exist embedded in the social landscape, so despite not being human they share similar incentives.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Anyway since their application, resume, and references were adequate for them to get to the interview, it would be a good time to figure out what they actually know, and how they wound up confused about the requirements for the job (Even if you know theyre just lying). Sometimes when 8 usd/hr is mentioned the applicant expects near zero experience to do the job. Five extra minutes of good PR time can help the image of your company /department.
Storm
First off, I have to say that I really hate the mess of things that litigation happy people and a lot of HR people (not all of them by any stretch, but a lot of them) have made of interviews. One or two incidents occur to some other company, and HR at your company goes "just don't say anything and they can't sue us."
It's almost like saying "If my eyes are closed, you can't see me."
Personally, I think that's a bad practice, but I'm not in much of a position to change it.
Now that I have that out of the way, I just want to say that my comment wasn't just about providing meaningful feedback (which some of us ask for and honestly want), but also about his attitude of "anyone whom I don't deem worthy is not worth another second of my time."
That sort of attitude bleeds through into the interview and it really turns off potential candidates. As a result, they let their friends know (who, as I said, let theirs know, etc). Deapite what he seems to think as evidenced by his response, treating a person like a real person is not just for career councilors.
I've walked out of interviews at places where the technical people displayed the "I am god and you must impress me, pesant" mentality, because I don't want to work in that sort of an environment. I know a lot of other really competent people who have done the same.
You want your company to present a truly positive face to potential hires (and, as an interviewer, you *are* the face of the company to the people you are interviewing) because that is one of the things that make people *want* to work for you. If they're excited about the company, whether or not they got the job, they will tell other people.
In the end if you can make your potential hires excited about your company, you have a lot better chance of getting really solid, quality people even if you don't hire that particular person, because word of mouth is extremely important.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
There are two assumptions I make once I get as far as the interview process:
Given these assumptions, at the end of every interview I always ask:
"Would you have any suggestions on how I could improve my interview or any areas of expertise that could increase my desirability as an {IT,developer,Crack Dealer}?"
I've found this to be an extremely useful question. It helps you as an interviewee improve with each consecutive interview. It also provides a saving throw. For example, perhaps you eliminated a bit of experience you had with Solaris systems in an enterprise environment on your resume (something has to go or it ends up being an autobiography)...and it so happens that they have a Solaris server and were looking for someone with at least a passing familiarity with that OS.
So yes, I think you should tell them in a non-prickish way what areas they could improve in to become a competitive applicant for the position they applied for with your company.
I've seen several posts here from employers saying *they* are the ones giving a job...why should they do anything for the interviewee. I found this outlook to be pretty amusing. I go into every interview with the attitude that its the company who needs me. I have a valuable skill set, the employer advertised because they need someone with my skillset. I've never gone for more then a week or two without work and I've never been fired. I've left jobs because employers had the attitude that they were doing me a favor by employing me. . . . and then that employer was stuck sifting through incompetent applicants for the next several weeks to find someone they now need once again.
You should never treat your applicants like your doing them a favor. Provide helpful advise to those who don't make the cut and the next time around you might see him with the {certification, education, experience, etc} that you wished he had the first time.
Now you have an applicant that is not only qualified, but has demonstrated a deep desire to work for your company, acts on constructive criticism, and self motivation.....sounds perfect? Don't you think?
I work in a medical research lab. Generally when someone does poorly in an interview, it's apparent that they had padded or built a resume to parrot back the requirements in the job advertisement. You advertise: "Experience with package X desirable but not necessary; solid analytical and programming skills a must." You get a client with package X experience as a line item. At the interview you find out (after many tries to drill down into deep information and coming up with vacuum each time) that the experience for that line item consists of looking over the shoulder of someone using package X for 2 minutes.
." This opens the door for interviewers to pose follow up questions which tend to drive toward a common language for communication. There are only so many things you can do with numbers, library/db calls and user interfaces. Being able to make connections shows that you have an inventory of what you know.
What really impresses me is someone who can tie things together. "No, I haven't used package X, but I have used Y which, if I understand the way X works is similar in
As far as telling the candidate that they loused up: I don't. I do work toward asking follow on questions which allow a candidate to shine. I start out with big ole softballs and from the responses refine the pitching strategy. The pitches get faster and if you are smart you'll take a pass on a few of them -- "I don't know" is an acceptable answer and it'll get me to re-load the pitch and deliver it differently. Pitches that get re-loaded many times are likely to be important to me in filling the position. Ones that never come back were likely an attempt to let the candidate get some momentum. In short I try to make sure that the candidate can surmise how they did.
Having had the opportunity to sit on both sides of the desk, let me voice my personal opinion. I can honestly say that showing someone areas to improve in will build trust, growth, and interest in your company. If "Jenny Sue" came to the team interview and performed horribly, but was really positive, give her reasons to try again. Don't say you'll call them back. If you tell the person "We are not interested", you push them away with a negative attitude and who knows what kind of negative web publicity they can provide your company. If you tell the prospective employee "This is a suggestion for improving on ..." or even "Your might want to learn more about ...", you build interest from the prospective employee. Tell them to work on those areas and improve their knowledge and skills and you want them to come back in a month or so. If the person is interested they will come back with more knowledge. I had to learn more for my last 3 jobs. Each time with more knowledge and a positive attitude.
This is a way to have this person start building their work skills and knowledge to your work enviroment without paying to train them. From there selection for hire becomes a process of where to fit them in with minimal training on how to work within your company. What is better than having a positive person come in to your company knowing they progressed to your standards, eager to be a team member. The result is a bad interview turned into a good future employee, with room for growth.
--MikeW
It's all about RTFM.
If a candidate isn't going to work out, that's the way it is.
But if you want to be a world class outfit make sure you always
send a letter or make a phone call thanking the person for their
time. Throw in some compliments and warm best wishes... etc.
If you don't extend this courtesy it is your company's reputation that
gets hurt. People talk. It is a small world. Pretty soon, good candidates
you would love to hire start coming in with negative perceptions of your company
or worst yet, just don't come in at all.
As for playing with people - well, then my friend the problem isn't the candidate
but you.
I'm frequently looking for a job (I do a lot on contract) and the standard reply is: We're sorry, but we currently have decided not to extend you an offer. We encourage you to please apply for any future openings...
Be nice and friendly, but keep it short and simple. You don't need to give a reason or maybe you chose somebody else, the job market is fierce. The nicest thing that one company did for me was reimburse me for the gas and hotel.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You the business are not in the business of making potential hires excited; your job is to make the best company you can, the best products, the happiest employees, the most loyal customers, etc., and people will flock to apply for employment. Google, for example.
The original poster was correct--there is zero reason to bother with a failed applicant. The proper, truthful, and polite response to their application is, "Sorry but you don't completely meet our requirements for this position. Good luck with your job search."
Now, if the applicant is a member of an underrepresented but litigious ethnic minority, you'd better be able to document your reasons very clearly. But a well run company will keep good records and its decisions will be defensible in a court of law.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
That's one of the problems with this country. We're spending so much time worrying about everyone else and their feelings, that we're not focusing on getting the job done - and getting it done better than anyone else.
I wish you would have specified the country. I'm going to assume the US, and going by that I couldn't disagree more. Anyone here constantly finding themselves thinking, "Damn, they sure treat me like a human being, and worry about my feelings at this job!"? Or, do you think, "Well, I'm just a gear in the machine here. Not going to bother going the extra mile or even work if nobody is looking"? I've only worked at one company in the IT field that was actively concerned about the wellbeing of everyone it came in contact with. Client, employee, interview subject, it didn't matter. Come in contact with the company, and you'd come away feeling like someone walking right out of a rockwell painting. I don't think it's any coincidence that they were also crushing the competition which was acting on similar game plans to yours. And there wasn't an employee in the place that wouldn't work weeks in a row without a day off, or go without lunch breaks, just because it was a company that anyone would take actual pride in being a part of. Heck, I was turned down a position in a better part of the country, with twice the pay, just because I was so shocked to be talked to, rather than at, during the interview process. Like it or not, the US is a service economy now. And with that comes working on providing a respectable company image to 'everyone', inside and outside the company.
Except the article is about employers who refuse to give candidates the information with which to improve themselves. Where should this information come from?
When you do offer a job to a candidate do you expect to get a reasonably prompt reply from them, even if they are turning the job down? Because according to your philosophy, if they've decided not to take your job, they shouldn't waste another second opf their time to inform you of this decision. There's no economic incentive for them to do so. So you're left waiting, not knowing whether the job offer has been accepted or not.
Sucks when other people are assholes to you, doesn't it?
... is to find good people.
You're not there to educate every schmuck that applies for your position. You're supposed to simply find the best candidate (that meets your bar) in a reasonable amount of time.
A secondary purpose of interviewing is to get people excited about your company. EVERYONE should leave your interviews wanting to work with you. That generally fosters good will in your area prompting qualified people to apply. A great way to make people not want to work with you is to be critical without the pretense of looking out for their best interests the way a friend, peer or mentor might.
I never let on how poorly people are doing. I simply alter my approach, simplify my questions and wrap up early. I always ask if they have any questions for me about the position or company. I always take a moment to tell them something exciting about what we do. I always thank them for coming. I always show them out with a handshake and a smile and then inform my recruiter regarding how I want to follow-up.
With a little luck, those that don't get invited back know someone who will.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
This thread exemplifies the current state of the industry in terms of an educational system that cannot keep up with current trends, and businesses that cannot percieve that an employee might require (oh no!) training. Additionally, some people involved in the hiring process are so disconnected from the actual workforce that they cannot recognize promising candidates.
These conditions combined with the vast array of different competing technologies create a very discouraging atmosphere for new workers trying to enter the field, especially for recent graduates. This may explain the so-called 'shortage of qualified candidates' that is so prevalently discussed.
Both academia and industry leave much to be desired for cultivating new prospects to fill current and future voids in the I.T. workforce.
Perhaps in treating this entire affair as a zero-sum game, the employer is being irrational.
Let's say you call a spade a spade, tell him he sucks, and should try something else. Rather than trying to be a codemonkey who couldn't pass for a code algae, he decides to become an elementary school teacher, a fire fighter, or assembly line worker. Even were I completely selfish, it's in MY self interest for things like teachers, fire fighters, and assembly line workers to exist because they benefit me by increasing the labor pool for those jobs and thus lowering their cost to ME. I could not say anything, have him wallow in the labor pool, eventually get welfare, and make me pay him MY tax dollars.
But hey, I'm just conservative, not an ass.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Whether his faith is rational or not has no bearing. He has a value system, and supporting a company has a cost in this dimension just like choosing a good return is in the money side of things. It is an economic incentive because it affects his well being and is a decision on how to allocate a scarce good. It's not money, but economics isn't about money.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
No matter what business your in, being a jerk and telling someone they are a "danger to any code base" is just bad business. The cost to you of being a professional, and telling them they are not qualified in a polite manner is 0, the cost to you of being a jerk may be 0 or it may be all the business you would have gotten from whatever company he does end up at, or all the business/potential recruits of his friends. In fact it never pays to be a jerk to anyone, from the janitor to the idiot you just fired. You never know when you are going to have to work with someone again, or need something from them. Being rude or playing game with someone because you are in a position of authority over them and they can't do shit about it, doesn't make you a big shot, it makes you an asshole. If someone has no chance at a position, tell them so as politely and directly as you can, and stop wasting their time.
Even if the candidate doesn't get the job because they weren't qualified, you want them to be excited about the company.
Thats not the half of it. Information Technology is a field that is LEARNED. One isn't born with it. And one certainly isn't good at it with whatever learns straight out of college. Most people (including myself) sucked at almost all the interviews I gave early in my career. However, the companies that dissed me left a lasting impression.
Now that I have invested time and effort in developing my skills, read 100s of books to be "better than the next guy", and have companies chasing me to work for them. But the companies that didnt give the decency to give a polite "no thanks" to me and wasted whole days of mine in the past, get the same treatment now.
Alienate fresh talent and make sure they will never work for you again.
You can teach just about anyone to play piano. Somehow, not many people do that well...
I think you guys are missing the point. Let me give you an extreme example. We have had a problem finding a receptionist at our work. We keep getting applicants with degrees wanting the job just to get their foot in the door. The point is, someone way overqualified for a job will get bored very quickly and either move on to another part of the company or leave once a job they are properly qualified for comes along. The receptionist's manager doesn't want to have to go through the hassle of training a new receptionist every two months because we are hiring an MBA to answer the phone and sign visitors in.
Music is easily taught. So is coding. But both require some talent to get very good at.
I know lots of people who write code. The accounts clerk; the help desk guy; etc. I know lots of managers who think "I can write a macro in Excel - this coding shit is easy!"
I know very few people who can approach a problem, analyze it, write down the requirements, and solve the problem in code - where the solution is not a swamp of unimaginable proportions.
Just as I know very few people who, having been taught music, can sit down at a piano and pound out something that makes you weep with joy and sorrow at the same time.
Coding well takes a mix of talent, dedication and hard work. A good coder is something of a master craftsman, close kin to a talented artist.
Anyone can do HTML. You check out MySpace lately?
I like all the parent posts that have generated SLEWS of negative responses in this thread, primarily because the parent posters have been sold on the lie of the "almighty buck." I.e. it's not worth their or their employer's time and money to give a second thought to a really bad candidate for a position. They seem to not be considering that sometimes their HR department flubs the position description, and that in turns makes the interviewee think that they are applying for something they are qualified for, but in reality are clearly not qualified for or wouldn't even WANT to apply for if the wording on the job description had been more accurate in the first place. Secondly, it's possible that they are clueless, but haven't been shown how clueless they are in a tactful way so that they can learn from their mistakes and better themselves. Or third, it's possible that the interviewee is a genuine jerk, liar, and/or moron, and when found lying should be told directly that their lying cost them a job - maybe they wouldn't waste everyone else's time the rest of their lives continuing on in their lying, jerkwad, moron ways. That interviewer *could* (although I admit, it's highly unlikely) just turn that person's life around by exposing them to their own idiotic, destructive behavior.
But no, somehow some of you think that you are making the company worth so much more because you didn't spend the $10 worth of the company's (and your own) time to send a tactful note (or $2 to do it there, on the spot) on to the failed interviewee as to why they got rejected for the job. Is an extra $10 in the company's pocket really going to make that much of a difference to the company, or more importantly, to your paycheck? The answer is, unequivocally, NO!