
Making it in the Mecca of Tech - desmondw
http://desmondw.com/blog/making-it-in-the-mecca-of-tech/
======
7Figures2Commas
> After vetting your experience by email a company may grant you a 30 minute
> screening call, followed by an hour technical interview over the phone, and
> possibly even a third hour-long phone call. THEN you may be invited on-site
> for a 3+ hour technical interview with 3-6 people. If you’ve managed to
> impress them so far, and the company has a particularly thorough interview
> process, they might invite you back for a fifth interview to finally make a
> determination. During which you’ll spend no less than five hours making an
> attempt to solve a practical problem the company has faced recently. If
> you’re the right man (or woman) for the job, your references check out, and
> you can pass a background check, you’ll be made an offer and given two days
> to make a decision. This is the San Francisco startup interview process.

I think it's batsh!t insane that (apparently) so many people are so willing to
go through this type of process, and to go through it _n_ times until they
land a job.

In the context of making a hiring decision, I would be skeptical of anybody
who would subject himself or herself to this insanity. Then again, I'm not
looking to hire people who are willing to chain themselves to a workstation
and code 12 hours a day in exchange for access to a foosball table and catered
meals.

~~~
rayiner
I don't get it. How does this square with the shortage of talent? In my field,
there is an objective oversupply of candidates, and the standard interview
process is still a 20 minute screener and 3-5!hour callback. You still get 30+
days to decide on an offer.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Every tech job I've ever had was pretty much that. 20-30 minute phone screen,
3-5 hour onsite interview.

But then I've never worked in the Bay Area.

~~~
tracker1
I've only ever experienced anything like what is described a few times. One
was a job I wasn't interested in. Another I wasn't interested in working with
the team/environment in question... and another still, was strung out so long,
and then dropped so late in such a weird way, it pissed me off.

For the most part it's usually a phone call with a recruiter or HR type.. then
a technical screen and/or an informal phone call.. followed by an in-person
1-2 hour interview. Usually half of the face to face interview is just chit-
chatting.

At this point, I've been in three jobs since I last updated my resume.. which
I should probably do eventually. I'm not sure how much it matters... I'm less
concerned about what comes next, than finishing what I am working on now. I'm
also up-front about my faults and in what ways I don't fit into a typical
corporate culture.

------
eastbayjake
You're onto something important when you say "companies are looking for
_ideal_ candidates – as in they’re willing to wait for them". I've been
frustrated by interviews where everything is fantastic, from the phone screen
to the on-site interview, then at the very last step a Director or VP of
Engineering needs to sign off, gets spooked by something really minor, then a
previously super-optimistic recruiter sends you the out-of-nowhere "We decided
to move forward with a better qualified candidate for this position" email.

They're more worried about hiring a single bad employee than rejecting many
well-qualified employees. And I grudgingly understand that and the effect it
has on company culture, but it's disappointing how arbitrary some of the
"might be a bad employee" signals are, and how inept HR and recruiters are at
giving you feedback about what you could have done better.

~~~
jurassic
This happened to me recently. After the final round I had a verbal indication
from the recruiter that all the feedback was positive and an offer would be
forthcoming. I was pretty crushed when a day or two later an emailed arrived
saying they'd decided to move forward with other candidates. A friend at the
company told me it was because somebody calling the shots was insisting on the
CS degree requirement. Such a stupid waste of time.

~~~
irishcoffee
Was the degree listed as a requirement on the job posting?

HN very much likes to poo-poo the value of a CS degree. There is value in it.
It proves you can master a variety of topics in 16 weeks, 8 times. (Or part-
time while working/spouse/parent/whatever) It proves you can follow through
with something over the course of years. It proves you can either work your
way through college, are financially mature enough to take out and manage
loans, or privileged enough to not need to worry about money.

All these things say a lot about a person.

I worked through college. Took me 7 years. I was a whiz-bang programmer before
I started. I did it for the opportunities it would afford me down the road. I
did it to prove to myself I could. College isn't always about the piece of
paper. I didn't walk for graduation. My diploma is still in the envelope they
mailed it in over a decade ago. I'm not proud of graduating, I'm proud I could
persevere.

There is value in having a degree. There is a lot of value in having a
technical degree. It isn't always about 'having' the degree, its about what it
represents.

~~~
jurassic
I have a degree in a technical field. And a master's degree, too. Both from
good schools. But neither are in CS.

Was it listed as required? I don't know. Lots of jobs put that down, but
usually they don't really mean it. It's just another part of the unicorn job
description. The same people who want 10 years of experience in a 5 year old
technology are the ones who put down CS degree requirements for every software
development job.

But, actually, my beef isn't with the requirements. I know there ARE jobs
where I'd be out of my depth because I haven't had the formal training and
that education has value. I take issue with the fact that they let me get
through the whole process before applying the degree filter. If you're going
to filter on easily measured boolean signals like the presence or absence of a
CS degree, you should do it at the beginning of the process and save everyone
a lot of time.

~~~
irishcoffee
That is a very fair point. I did not consider the timing when responding. I
agree with you, if they actually cared, they would have said something at the
beginning, not the end.

------
patmcguire
I feel like a lot of interview processes are just hazing - "Hey, we went
through it all, right?" "Gotta show commitment!" And if it was that much
trouble, it must have been worth it, so why would you leave?

------
encoderer
The upshot of all this is that now he starts his new job, proves himself,
makes friends and contacts, and generally becomes part of the SF Bay Area tech
scene. In 18 months (average tenure of software engineer in SF) he'll have a
very different experience.

To everybody here who's surprised by the gauntlet he had to run: the old
saying hire hard fire easy comes to mind. I grew up in Ohio and started my
career there. There are great and awful engineers everywhere, but certainly on
average the level of skill and talent is much higher here in the bay area than
anywhere else I've worked. Once you're initiated into that, if you do good
work, you have a level of mobility here that can only be dreamed of elsewhere.
There are just so many startups and tech companies, even compared to other
meccas like NYC.

~~~
rco8786
> In 18 months (average tenure of software engineer in SF) he'll have a very
> different experience.

Exactly. Once you run the gauntlet once you generally don't have to do it
again...at least not to the same extent.

And the '2 day' rule won't apply either.

------
eldavido
There's a meme that Bay Area engineers are overpaid, but I'm not so sure. I've
worked in a few different cities and can say without reservation, engineering
staff here (SF) is quite a lot more productive than in other places.

I don't know why. Probably some combination of education, better management,
longer and harder working conditions/hours, more selective interviewing, and
more general hustle and motivation being around the best.

------
teen
Why would you post that you got rejected from 150+ other companies publicly
before starting a new job? I might be a little apprehensive about my hiring
decision at HelloSign after reading that... I was in a similar position to you
(coming from a smaller city with a less than stellar tech background) and I
received several offers within 2-3 weeks of job hunting.

~~~
steven777400
Respectfully, I think this attitude only contributes to the problem. It needs
to be not shameful to try and fail, not shameful to have periods of
unemployment, not shameful to bark up the wrong tree.

The more successful people who admit their past weaknesses, the less shameful
it becomes. Having 150+ rejections shouldn't be a problem. The problem is the
person (who? me) too scared to do those 15 or 150 applications in the first
place.

~~~
vonmoltke
I was going to post a direct response myself, but I think yours captures the
essence of my issues with that post. As someone with well over 100 rejections
by that standard[1] over the past five years, attitudes like that really rub
me the wrong way. I have a hard time even getting companies to talk to me,
though I am working with someone to do something about that.

[1] Application but no offer

------
dmritard96
"California, by the way, is everything it’s made out to be. "

This is all too true. I am grappling with the possibility that I could never
return to the East Coast near the rest of my family or my wife's family.

~~~
sytelus
Could you elaborate in what way? I've heard both sides. Sure there are more
tech jobs and unparalleled startup scene. But housing situation is extremely
shitty. You are forced to live in shoebox for a LOT of money. People waste
enormous hours in traffic every day. State is in huge debt and public school
system is one of the worse. Govt is not able to develop infrastructure with
growth. And you still pay everything through nose added with state and city
taxes. The place is enormously overcrowded to be pleasant. Significant portion
of population is possibly undocumented exploited immigrants who don't even
speak english. People who often feel its nice out there are usually coming
from mid west small town with nothing to do or super-crawded places like
NJ/NY. People from places like Seattle, Florida, Portland or New England might
not feel they have ended up at better place.

But really, I do want to know in exactly what way California is everything
it’s made out to be?

PS: Above are not my personal opinions, it's just second hand information that
has often came up in conversations.

~~~
dmritard96
"But housing situation is extremely shitty. You are forced to live in shoebox
for a LOT of money." Depends, I am in Noe Valley and its pricey but nice. It
really comes down to values/lifestyle preferences. Do I really want to live in
a giant place where I can accumulate lots of stuff or do I want to live a bit
lighter and be able to do world class hiking every weekend year round.

"People waste enormous hours in traffic every day." Not unique to here.
Experienced the same in South Florida growing up and Chicago for the brief
period where I didn't work close to where I lived.

"State is in huge debt and public school system is one of the worse." Not
really on my radar as I am in my mid twenties. Also, plenty of places where
this is the norm anyhow.

"Govt is not able to develop infrastructure with growth. And you still pay
everything through nose added with state and city taxes." Infrastructure
hasn't really been an issue. Taxes are high no doubt. So is tech income.

"The place is enormously overcrowded to be pleasant." Not sure how you define
this, SF proper is full but would prefer that to Detroit without a second
thought.

"Significant portion of population is possibly undocumented exploited
immigrants who don't even speak english." I hate the idea of exploiting people
regardless of well, anything. I love the idea of immigrants and I am not
worried about the population not speaking English. Any urban area is going to
have multiple languages and immigrants. It means interesting culture and
experiences. Most places I have been where its ~100% English speaking have
been rather depressing.

"People who often feel its nice out there are usually coming from mid west
small town with nothing to do or super-crowded places like NJ/NY. People from
places like Seattle, Florida, Portland or New England might not feel they have
ended up at better place." I grew up in a beautiful area of South Florida,
went to school in Chicago and lived in the hippest of hip areas in Chicago. It
simply depends on what you are into. I wanted to go outside and recreate all
12 months of the year the midwest is rather lame. Too cold and not much of
interest ecologically/geographically. There are many great places to live, but
not that many at the epicenter of the tech universe.

------
tomcam
No mention of brain teaser questions, which is A Good Thing IMHO. The
collaborate-on-a-recent-problem one is also a strong idea. It would reveal
things about the candidate that practicing brain teasers would not.

~~~
alimoeeny
"brain teaser"s are very background and culture dependent (and even age
dependent), IMHO. I'd prefer to "spend time" with candidates, solve a problem
I have solved already with them together to see how they deal with it.

------
tomrod
This story made me think of something. Are there any HR firms out there that
professionally evaluate hiring practices?

