
Don’t Get Attached, It’s Just Luck. My Interviewing Advice and Tips - maxehnert
https://medium.com/@ehnertm/dont-get-attached-it-s-just-luck-26517994de30#.5j2hjaj2e
======
neverminder
I have noticed that too often the interviewers look for people like
themselves, which I find really naive - chances of you finding your own copy
are slim to none.

A recent anecdote from my own experience. I've interviewed with this company.
Everything seemed to go well, I had a talk with hiring manager, then with one
of the guys from technical team where we discussed real world problems, etc.
Everything goes well. As soon as I start thinking this could be the one, they
say something along the lines of "let's see if this other guy from our team
has some questions". So they bring the other guy who seems a little annoyed
being dragged away from what he was doing (we're in an open office with glass
walls, so I could see him at his desk). This guy turns out to be the "bad
cop". He immediately goes down to more CS/academic level with his questions
and eventually asks some question along the lines of "what does compiler do in
a situation X when there is Y". Well, I am forced to answer that I have no
idea (it's not exactly the kind of problem you normally encounter in real
life), so the "bad cop" just nods his head in a forgiving manner and I know
immediately it's a bust and that he's gonna veto me out. Sounds familiar?

~~~
jondubois
Yes, that could happen if the person interviewing you has really deep
knowledge of a very narrow area and somehow they've grown to think that this
niche embodies all of software engineering.

I find that older, more experienced engineers tend to know not to ask these
kinds of deep domain-specific questions (unless the are directly relevant to
the position being applied for).

The unfair part about this type of interview process is that the interviewer
assumes that what the candidate knows is only a subset of what they know - But
they completely ignore the knowledge that lies outside of the intersection
(which could also be useful).

------
pmorici
This has got to be one of the most honest descriptions of how job hunting
actually works ever written and posted on HN.

It's a sharp contrast to a lot of the stuff that is posted here that depicts
job hunting like some kind of spiritual search for your life's passion.

~~~
mooreds
I think this is a great description of the job hunting process early in your
career.

Later in your career, if you have kept connections alive, the job hunt should
look like this:

"Hi <member of network>,

I'm looking for a position doing X at Y, and I noticed you know Sara at Y. Do
you mind doing intros? I'd really appreciate it."

...

intros/coffee with Sara.

...

resume to the hiring manager, perhaps through some automated system, but with
a thumb on the scales

...

interview

...

hire/no hire decision based on mutual fit.

Now, this isn't about nepotism, it's about the power of having worked
together. While the internet is great and you can learn a ton about a
candidate (sometimes) by their online work, sometimes you can't. And nothing
is as high bandwidth as having worked with someone. (Well, maybe a family
connection.)

So if you can build your trust networks and get informal introductions to a
company from someone who has worked with both parties, you're in a very strong
position.

That said, as I stated at the beginning (and the author did as well), this
post was fantastic for folks without such a network.

~~~
vonmoltke
> Later in your career, if you have kept connections alive, the job hunt
> should look like this

If you kept connections alive and actually have connections that move on to
other companies. 95% of the connections I have made in 14 years are either
retired or still at the companies they were at when I met them. How does this
help me?

~~~
mooreds
Interesting! Not my experience, so hard to comment intelligibly. As if that is
going to stop me, this is the internet.

I guess I would still go into your network and see if they have met anyone who
has moved on. Adter all, it isn't the direct connection that you are looking
for (though that is preferable), but the second layer connection.

Otherwise I think you are either in the position of following the author's
advice or trying to expand your network by working with people in other ways
(side projects, moonlighting, open source, volunteering). I know how unsavoury
that choice is.

Since I can't definitively speak to your situation, let me talk about ways to
avoid it.

\- work in a consulting shop early in your career.

\- seek big companies over small as your first or second job

\- prefer job dense locations early in your career

\- volunteer your time when you have cycles. Work an event, write some code,
etc

I realize these are not all available to everyone, they are just guidelines
that will expand your network.

~~~
mooreds
I forgot one of the best ways to expand your contact network: contracting.
Find a company that can sell your hours and give them the 40-50% they will
take. Make sure you add everyone you work with (clients, other contractors) to
your network list (I prefer LinkedIn but excel will work).

------
jondubois
I've been coding since I was 14 (I'm 27 now) and went to uni; I usually never
have a problem with technical interviews, but I applied for Facebook just to
try out their interview process (because one of my academic-minded software
engineering friends told me that he didn't pass the third interview - So I was
intrigued).

I thought that their questions were mostly good but the interviewer makes you
code live in realtime - I found this really stressful and I froze several
times.

I remember one of the challenges they posed in one of the interviews was to
flatten a JSON multidimensional array that had an arbitrary level of nesting.
I implemented the recursive solution without any problem (which is the
difficult part right?) but then the interviewer asked me to come up with a
non-recursive solution - This is actually easier, but because I was under
stress and was still thinking about the problem in recursive terms, I just
froze.

I even asked "Do I need to use a fringe list?" (referring to a structure used
in several search algorithms) but I don't think the interviewer understood my
question and they weren't able to give me any guidance for what they were
specifically looking for so I just asked to skip that question because of time
pressure.

Then later they asked some really easy questions about HTML and CSS (which
I've done thousands of time) but because of the IDE they made me use, I
couldn't actually run the code to test (and under stress, I forgot the exact
syntax for a few things).

I guess this is an interview process you need to really prepare for.

I suppose the process makes sense for FB; the feeling of 'being watched' which
I felt in the interview is probably common while working there day-to-day
(considering the open workspace environment) - They need engineers who can
perform in such an environment. I'm definitely not one of them.

~~~
sschueller
Is there no trial period in the US?

Every person we hire here (Switzerland) gets interviewed but because it is
almost impossible to know if someone is going to work out there is a trial
period of three months by law. Usually with a termination time of one week.
After the trial you will usually need to give at least three month notice. You
can get the most brilliant Coder but if he/she doesn't work with your existing
team for what ever reason, he/she isn't the right fit for you.

You can only find these things out after they start working for you.

~~~
pmiller2
Unless there's an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement
stating otherwise, people can be fired in the US at any time for almost any
reason. That "almost" hides a little nuance, such as the reason can't be
related to race, gender, or certain other "protected" reasons, but, "any
reason" is a pretty good approximation. No notice period is required. If
you're lucky, you get to walk out by yourself carrying a box of your stuff.
Frequently people are escorted out.

~~~
oblio
That's horrible. And I'm from Romania, which is a second world country,
basically.

We usually have a two week notice (it depends on the company and the position)
and I've never seen someone escorted out. There's often a short inventory of
company assets you used, and that's it.

~~~
evgen
It has its downsides, but the benefit of such a system is that it is easier to
hire someone as well. It lowers the risk of hiring if you know that you can
terminate employment just as easily, so the jobs market ends up being a bit
more robust at the cost of a bit more volatility.

It should also be noted that for the sort of jobs we are talking about here
there is a difference between being terminated 'for cause' (e.g. incompetence,
theft from your employer, etc) and termination due to downsizing and the job
itself being eliminated. In the latter case you will often get a package of
benefits and the termination process is somewhat similar to the one you are
familiar with.

~~~
beevai142
However, no notice and escorting people out sounds more like power fantasy
than something with economic reasons.

~~~
marcinzm
I'd say it's more of a security concern than anything. The thinking being that
you don't want a potentially disgruntled employee with little to potentially
lose have access to your systems.

~~~
oblio
I was sure someone would say this. As a comparison: Romania is a relatively
poor country, full of hotheaded invididuals ("Balkan" mentality). On top of
that, we're apparently EU's #2 expat community in terms of total prison
population. So both hotheads and also a lot of criminals (most likely
thieves).

And yet we still allow our folks to walk unescorted for a few weeks inside the
company premises.

After all, how many just-layed-off employees will want to steal or damage
company property to top off their recent loss of job with criminal charges and
a criminal record?

From the outside it feels like a bit of paranoia on the part of US companies.

I might be missing something, this is just my opinion as an outsider.

~~~
evgen
Let's consider the counter-argument and ignore any possibility for vandalism,
theft, hacking, or other destructive activity by a recently terminated
employee. Why would you want them walking around the building? What possible
benefit is there to this? Why not just give them a hearty handshake, a thanks
for your work, and tell them that they will be paid for the remainder of the
termination period but don't show up at work tomorrow.

As for the paranoia part, it is definitely a bit of paranoia on the part of
the company management but paranoia for a reasonable reason: there are
numerous examples in the US of someone getting laid off or fired and returning
to the office with a gun. From the perspective of management, why take the
chance? If there is any hint that the termination will not be pretty you make
sure someone escorts the person out and you have shown yourself to be taking
due consideration if something unpleasant happens.

~~~
sangnoir
> What possible benefit is there to this?

Non USian here: regardless of who gave notice, the lame-duck period is
normally used for wrapping up whatever work/project the departee was working
on and handing it over to a colleague or manager. People generally are more
worried about getting bad references than office shootings.

------
swang
this is all good info. especially the take homes.

when i interviewed this time around for a new job, the most frustrating part
were the take homes. lots of companies expect you to do a sample project that
only grants you an audience to a technical phone screen. like, what? didn't i
just pass your technical test? if i still have to show my technical prowess
doesn't that mean you don't trust my resume, or trust that i honestly
completed your assignment?

i also agree these take homes are not 4 hour affairs. they give you no
direction so you can't sacrifice ui/ux for functionality because you have no
clue how they judge it. i failed a large company's take home even though it
was feature complete, but i sacrificed really slick/nice ui for a workable ui
that i felt was passable given no direction.

i got a thanks but no thanks reply back.

as with regards to luck; another company i interviewed at, i aced their take
home. then i interviewed with ~6 people who all said they liked me (or at
least that was the feedback i got). but when i interviewed with the vpe, i
failed a question about semaphores, (i knew what they are, but just didn't
have the answer to a specific question the vpe asked) and failed the job app.

the job position was to be a front-end developer.

~~~
kybernetikos
I disagree about the take homes. But this may primarily be because I've been
hiring with a heavily weighted take-home for the last six months. Here's my
reasoning:

1\. I don't want to work for a company that uses CVs as a major part of its
job screen, since they are nearly useless from an informational point of view.
Steps that improve the quality of candidates also improve the expected quality
of your future colleagues.

2\. The take home gives significantly more information than a phone screen.
Candidates who are rejected because they find the take home too hard, or who
would have passed a phone screen but not the take home are saving time because
they don't have to take any time off to come into the office for an onsite.

3\. Having a good take-home means we can make the rest of the process more
lightweight. We have an extension interview where we pair with you while you
extend what you took home, and then you're done. This is much more respectful
of your time than multiple days of algorithmic questions.

4\. It's easier to make marking take-homes blind - i.e. to guard against
various biases compared to phone screens and even in-person interviews.

5\. The take-home is simplified, but similar to the sort of thing you will
have to do in your actual work, so doing it gives you extra information about
the job itself.

6\. The take-home is designed to result in something that's fun. Many of our
candidates say that they enjoyed doing it. Even some of the ones who fail it.
Some even say it's a reason that they choose us over some other company.

It is true that some good candidates simply refuse to do take homes on
principle since they have lots of choice. To try to combat this, we make sure
we try to explain why it's worth your time.

If I told candidates 'congratulations, you've got a 1 day onsite interview'
(where in the morning you're on your own and we send you home at lunchtime if
you've not made good progress) instead of a half-day take-home (in which we
are very flexible over how much elapsed time you need) and a 1.5 hour onsite
extension, do you think candidates would prefer that?

~~~
pmiller2
I'm assuming you're referring to an un-timed homework assignment. Timed
homework assignments are absolutely the devil and I don't think I'd do one of
these.

My biggest issue with (un-timed) take home assignment is that often, as a
candidate, this ends up with me investing a nontrivial amount of time, only to
not hear anything back. If I'm going to spend multiple hours on something, I
would kind of like something in return, such as feedback on my work. Very,
very few companies will give any feedback since they don't want to be sued
and/or have the candidate try to rebut the reasons why they were turned down.

~~~
kybernetikos
Yeah, it's untimed in the sense that we don't specify an elapsed time it must
be done in. People have different things going on in their lives, and you
can't just assume they can drop everything for your test. We specify a
suggested amount of time so that people know not to spend too much time on it.

On the feedback point: this is a perfectly reasonable stance. Perhaps I should
give better feedback to our candidates.

Part of my concern is that I've seen candidates show me emails from their
recruiters that have attached all the detailed feedback I've give to their
previous candidates.

The other thing is that at some points in the hiring, you're really competing
against the others in the pipeline, so you might have actually performed very
well, just not quite as well as one of the others. I have also seen one
candidate fail based on multiple independent personal disrecommendations
rather than on performing badly in the test.

I have noticed in previous interview processes that a lot of people think they
failed for a reason other than the reason they actually did fail.

I do think it'd be more fair for me to give better and more detailed feedback,
but there are a lot of pitfalls with the most obvious version of that. Perhaps
there's room for a bit of disruption with a good solution to this problem.

~~~
pmiller2
Triplebyte does a fair job on the feedback front. I've been through their
process recently, and found it to be more useful for me than any other
company's process (I chose the coding project over the standard process). I
dislike that they still put candidates on the spot by writing code literally
in front of them[0], but the feedback I got from them was actually useful.

I think your issue with candidates showing you emails from their recruiters is
actually an issue with recruiters more than your process. Recruiters will do
just about anything they can to make the placement.

If you're in a situation where a candidate excels on the test but gets passed
over in favor of someone who did even better, then, good for you. :) "We
decided to go with another candidate at this time, but here's a little
feedback on your coding project," would go a long way with me. If you're
really feeling generous, a referral into another company would be a great
thing.

Someone who fails because of personal disrecommendations, you can just give
them a generic "We reviewed your coding project and here's what we thought of
it... but we decided to go in a different direction. Best of luck on your
search." (I'm assuming these people fail because they're assholes, not because
they're incompetent, right?)

\---

[0]: Seriously, guys, if you're reading this... I chose the project interview
because I fall apart when being put on the spot, _and I told you that._ I
don't have someone watching over my shoulder at work... and it's a good thing,
too, otherwise I'd end up having anxiety attacks.

------
dajohnson89
The methodical approach is applaudable, and I'm really glad it works for
people like the author. Maybe it is indeed the best strategy. But after a few
rounds of doing this, it gets old. Not old as in, "I'd rather be watching
westworld than drafting this cover letter". But old as in, "I'd rather be
shoveling diarrhetic pig shit than doing this code exercise".

I really love being a software engineer. The job application process is the
biggest threat to me keeping that passion.

~~~
maxehnert
I completely agree. It's incredibly frustrating to stop working on any side
projects and stop learning any framework/library stuff to focus exclusively on
algorithmic questions for weeks or months. That's why I tried to make it clear
you have to just push through and give it everything you can so you can get
back to doing fun stuff again. No one likes doing this but lowly developers
that just need a job can't do much about it unfortunately.

------
tdeck
Side question - how do these people interviewing at "a dozen or so places"
manage it? Assuming most companies' interviews will force you to take a full
day off work, and they will have different schedules and offer deadlines. Is
there a trick to managing this that is eluding me? Even with taking a couple
of weeks off it seems like it would be very difficult.

~~~
pmoriarty
Without a job, one usually has lots of free time.

~~~
tdeck
That still doesn't help much with lining up the offers, but I guess that's
less of a concern when you're unemployed (I.E. you'll take the first decent
offer you get). However, I feel like I have often read accounts of people
_with a job_ interviewing at 6-10 companies and I always wondered how.

~~~
jedmeyers
> That still doesn't help much with lining up the offers

Larger companies are aware that you might be pursuing other opportunities, and
are usually willing to postpone extending a final offer until the time you are
ready to accept it or at least have other offers to compare it to.

------
cmancini
Lots of great stuff here. It is a numbers game in many ways since I've been in
interview processes where we turned down lots of people who go on to succeed
in amazing ways at other companies.

I would be wary about recommending most people write cover letter templates. I
can tell a templated letter most of the time. I'd recommend just writing a few
sentences from the heart. Why you're great for them. Copy+Paste doesn't work,
since each company is different and your background will connect in different
ways. Keep it short and just ask to learn more.

~~~
maxehnert
Thanks for the kind words.

For cover letters, I think I'm using template more loosely and probably should
have provided examples. The template part is for describing myself, however I
still write out a paragraph or two specific to that company. I think I noted
on researching the place before hand so you can include your favorite things
about the place in the letter.

------
exBarrelSpoiler
It's quite fitting that the dating scene in S.F. is often similar to tech
interviewing. Play the number games, don't get attached, and move on. Nothing
personal, it's just metrics. Is this what cutthroat economic competition does
to people?

~~~
mysterypie
The dating scene is messed up _for men_ in the Bay Area because eligible men
vastly outnumber eligible women. It's as simple as that. All the unnatural
relationship dynamics flows from this fact. More men study computer science,
math, physics, and engineering than women do. Silicon Valley is a magnet for
people in those fields. Silicon Valley ends up with way more single men in the
20-40 age bracket than single women.

If you a straight single male, you have an important decision. If you value
the immense professional opportunies of the Bay Area more than finding a
partner, then do move there. If you think that finding a partner is also very
important, then consider finding your job someplace with better ratios. If the
Bay Area 20-40 dating pool is something like 3 male to 1 female, that means
2/3 of single men will be without partners.

~~~
pmiller2
It's actually not quite _that_ bad, but there are some areas where men
outnumber women by over 40% [0]. The ratio is a little better in Silicon
Valley, at about 1.14:1 [1]. The SF/Oakland/Hayward metro area fares a little
better at 0.93:1 overall [2], but that doesn't take into account how difficult
is is to access SF from the East Bay and vice versa. It doesn't take much of a
skew to really mess up the ratios.

[0]: [http://visualizing.nyc/bay-area-zip-codes-singles-
map/](http://visualizing.nyc/bay-area-zip-codes-singles-map/)

[1]: [http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/10/02/study-says-silicon-
va...](http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2014/10/02/study-says-silicon-valley-
swimming-with-eligible-men/)

[2]: _Ibid._

~~~
sangnoir
When it comes to dating, simple gender ratios might not paint the complete
picture because it's not just any man:any woman. Frequently, the prospective
partner has to have a similar socioeconomic background: I'm not in the Valley
so I don't know if that ratio is in the ball park of 1.14:1 for the "goes to
Silicon Valley" male archetype

------
dilaver
" _When I go into ‘interviewing mode’ I stop working on side projects, I stop
visiting bs sites like reddit, news sites, and even HN. If it isn’t going to
help you get that job just cut it from your life. Focus intensely on learning
and writing job applications until you get there. This process isn’t fun, why
drag it out any longer than you need to._ "

~~~
gizmo686
That ... doesn't sound healthy, or productive. It is well established that
there are diminishing returns to working longer hours on a task, even to the
point of negative marginal utility. This is not true just for knowledge
workers but, surprisingly, also held for factory workers during the industrial
revolution. Not to mention the health impacts of spending so much time on a
singular (soul crushing IMO) task.

~~~
viraptor
I don't think it applies here. If you work on one task with one goal for
longer, you do get exhausted. But I don't think it applies to repetitive tasks
with different targets each time. You cannot "apply harder to the same
company", but if you spend more time and apply to 30 rather than 20, you get a
big improvement in the chance for positive response.

------
meta_AU
While it seems obvious now, the note that job listings with direct emails get
first priority is something I'll keep in mind for the future.

~~~
pmiller2
I applied a similar principle to getting my first place in the Bay Area. I
made a point to contact listings on CL that included phone numbers before
other listings. I got lucky, and it worked out. :)

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
I'm starting to feel the same about the take home tests. Too time consuming.

~~~
viraptor
I think it can work both ways. Tasks like that can be time-consuming, but
would you rather take a day off for an on-site interview, or spend ~1h doing
it at home? There's some line that shouldn't be crossed of course - I think
companies shouldn't give the test to everyone - just those who are actually
considered after some screening. But I've been on both sides: taking and
preparing the test, and I think it's a good idea as a 2nd stage filter.

My test was completely open-ended. Trivial task (script to copy data from .csv
to a sqlite, optionally notify on the queue at the end), but make it as
production-ready as you can/want. I don't think I could learn as much about
people's abilities during an interview, as I could from that task. I mean, the
1 person who made a proper package, a short .rst install & use documentation,
and included crazy unicode test cases was immediately on the top of the list.

~~~
pmiller2
Those take home tasks are rarely 1 hour deals, so it's not a question of spend
an hour at home or take a day off for an on-site. It's usually spend X hours
at home _and_ take a day off for an on-site.

Do you really think that "crazy unicode test case" person really only spent an
hour on your test?

~~~
viraptor
> Those take home tasks are rarely 1 hour deals

This seems to be the common complaint, but really this is discussing the idea
-vs- the implementation. Some examples here of checking specific things that
were not in scope, or tasks that take whole day are really disappointing. And
I agree there are loads of really crappy tests out there.

But yes, you can create a test that's easily doable in 1h. As for the crazy
edge case tests: probably. It's still a reasonable thing to check for, but
often people don't. (having a non-ascii name helps here) If you have simple
enough and open-ended enough tasks, I don't think extra time helps the
candidates in any way. I mean, either you have experience doing something or
you don't. Even if you spent, for example, X hours researching "what does
production-ready mean?" and related topics, I don't believe you'd produce as
good result as someone with actual experience. (yeah, I could see that in the
answer)

~~~
pmiller2
I will concede the point that if it literally takes an hour, and it means I
don't have to write code in the interview with someone watching my every move
_at all_ , then, yes, I would gladly do such a test. I'm still skeptical that
a test that requires writing production-ready code and tests would really take
only 1h.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> When I go into ‘interviewing mode’ I stop working on side projects, I stop
visiting bs sites like reddit, news sites, and even HN. If it isn’t going to
help you get that job just cut it from your life.

While I agree that interviewing is a bit of a crap shoot, the above paragraph
from the OP is actually a pretty good argument for _not_ doing anything to
prepare for it.

If going into interviewing mode means you stop working on your own stuff, or
having free time, or generally doing stuff that a) you enjoy and b) make you
better at your work (rather than interviews) then you're paying a cost
alright, and it's at least comparable to the cost of take-home coding
exercises.

If you're just applying anywhere you can it probably means you don't care
where you go anyway. If you apply in sufficiently many places eventually
you'll find the one place where they like you, you like them, you got what
they want and they're willing to hire you.

In fact if you take the time you'd waste in getting good at interviewing and
invest it in learning a new language, or framework, or following a MOOC etc,
you'll probably end up with much better qualtiy work, because your actual work
skills will get better. It might take a bit longer to get there but you'll
(probably) stick around for longer and you'll get more out of it.

------
cashweaver
(Is it okay to post things like this?)

I've written a self-hosted search utility for HN threads posted by whoishiring
which I'll be using in my upcoming job hunt in a month or so. It performs
regex-based full-text searches of top-level comments in threads posted by
whoishiring. I hope it can help someone in their hunt!

[https://github.com/cashweaver/hn-who-is-hiring-
search](https://github.com/cashweaver/hn-who-is-hiring-search)

------
citeguised
"Things like knowing the box model, closures, map/filter/reduce, object vs
array, prototypes, bind/call/apply, event delegation. These made up almost
ever single first phone screen interview I’ve ever had."

Seems pretty hefty for a junior-frontend-position.

~~~
maxehnert
You're right, I should have been more clear. I wasn't applying for junior
positions anymore but most of the technique is what I did the last time I
applied for jobs when I was looking for more junior positions.

------
noescape
Why do rejection emails say "good luck" at the end?

~~~
nine_k
Because you, the recipient, must now continue the job hunt, so luck in finding
a better employer would come in handy.

~~~
noescape
But why is this pleasantry about "luck" and not something else? You don't hear
employers say "keep studying" or "we wish you a good effort" or "we hope you
build cool stuff".

Isn't the employer referring to luck an admission from the employer that
interviewing has a lot to do with luck?

~~~
Cpoll
Because "keep studying" can be construed negatively: You're not good enough.
Unsolicited advice isn't usually a good idea politically.

Saying "luck" implies several things: \- You just weren't the right fit. \- I
don't wish to imply your skills are lacking. \- I hope you succeed, even
though I wasn't able to help.

~~~
vonmoltke
> Because "keep studying" can be construed negatively: You're not good enough.
> Unsolicited advice isn't usually a good idea politically.

They're rejecting you because you weren't good enough (or because they suck at
actually identifying talent).

> Saying "luck" implies several things:

None of which are good things about the process, because a process should be
designed to drive the percent influence of luck to as close to zero as
practical.

> \- You just weren't the right fit.

Bullshit non-reason.

> \- I don't wish to imply your skills are lacking.

We also don't want to admit that we may not have any idea what we are looking
for or how to evaluate it.

> \- I hope you succeed, even though I wasn't able to help.

If I don't need improvement but I succeed elsewhere in a similar job, that
just means you screwed up.

------
scarface74
I can't imagine going through that much trouble trying to find a job as a
developer. My m.o.:

1\. Contact my list of (currently) 14 local recruiters from different
companies with my resume, and tell them what type of job I'm looking for,
salary, and location within the metro area.

2\. They send me a list of jobs with the descriptions abd salary range -
something you can't usually get without a recruiter - and I tell them which
one I want to be submitted to.

3\. Keep a list of the jobs, status (submitted, phone interview scheduled, in
person interview scheduled, waiting for response), recruiter information, etc.
so I don't get double submitted.

Historically, since 1999 and three years out of college, it has taken me about
a two-four weeks to find a job, usually paying significantly more.

The last round I just went through. I had 13 prospects, 7 phone interviews, 3
in person interviews, trying to schedule the other 4, and will probably have
four offers by the end of the week. This is with me being picky on location,
salary, and environment.

I'm not trying to say that I'm a special snowflake. I know a lot of people
that I work with that could do the same.

------
Tempest1981
If a company makes you an offer early in the process, how long are they
typically willing to wait (while you interview with the other dozen
companies)? Esp if you save the ideal companies for later in the process.

------
joatmon-snoo
My perspective is skewed because I'm a uni student, but although there's
really good stuff here, a lot also sticks out to me as the kind of advice I'd
be giving to someone who just wants something to pay the bills, not someone
who wants to do something they really want to do.

The high volume apps and crapshoot stuff - 100% yes.

Stuff like template cover letters? Nuh-uh. I have a _structure_ that I stick
to - hey, saw you guys are doing X and I think X is cool and wanna help y'all
build it up, blablabla - but it's not a fill-in-the-blanks template.

> Additionally have a good set of STAR questions ready and memorized. [...]
> Tell me a time when you disagreed with a manager… those types of questions
> that we all hate, but you MUST know them and be familiar with them.

I can spot a memorized behavioral from a mile away, and it is without fail a
_terrible_ move. I mean, yeah, go through the questions, jot down a note about
that time Alice did that thing or you had to help Bob out with that other
thing in case you blank out when you get the question, but don't come up with
an answer and memorize it. The point of these questions is to demonstrate that
you're cognizant of team dynamics and the need to manage and navigate them.

~~~
jacalata
No, you can't spot a memorized story. You can possibly spot a poorly memorized
story. It's the difference between learning a speech off by heart and knowing
the material backwards.

~~~
vonmoltke
Without probing questions, no. On technical matters and some interpersonal
matters, though, you can use a variation of 5 Whys to quickly drill down on
certain decisions or details. The only way to pass that is to actually know
what you are talking about.

~~~
jacalata
Exactly. Memorize the incident, what you want to convey about it, and how to
emphasise your angle on it. Don't rote-learn a single telling, and don't blow
it off and think "ok I'd talk about that time I saved the orphans, next!"so
that in the interview you're all "I was on my way back from preventing a bank
robbery...wait no, it was a mugging...and i went past the orphanage on 5th
Ave, or 6th, you know the one?"

