The author is saying that she brought the tools required to work, which is more than her former team-mate did. The idea and domain-specific knowledge about making amends was hers. That's not everything, but it's a good start. The other two people volunteered to join her, which means they thought her idea was good.
There were clear flaws to asking non-technical people to participate in a hackathon. But it wasn't the end of the world. Some groups needed to generate copy for the web sites they mocked up, and the writers and editors in the room were useful. In addition, the page flow and decision trees of some apps were clearly superior because experienced people with no coding or design experience had helped determine their structure.
Your second paragraph begs the question. The point of this whole article is that the interview-as-interview concept has problems. The main problem is that interviews don't teach recruiters or hiring managers jack about the interviewees. They are literally useless in gathering information about candidate potential.
The hackathon-as-interview is an attempt to let interviewees transmit the only information that is of any use in hiring: can this person get a job done? do they work well with others? The hackathon is actually great at showing who is capable, committed and professional.
The whole "you're asking for too much time" also misses the point. These events are designed for people who cannot get hired by other means, because their resumes do not present well. Those are precisely the people who DO have time for this sort of event. And despite its flaws, many of them got something out of it.
I congratulate the people who have no time for Staffup Weekend. Their lives are easier than mine. I am still looking to fill several positions, including UX designer and infrastructure engineer. (Those are not the roles I sought to fill with Staffup.) I may have to pay a contingency-based recruiter $35,000 to find them. Is that a good solution? Not really...
Even if you're targeting candidates who are unemployed and desperate, you can still find a way to screen them without requiring them to waste 1-2 days for the chance of maybe getting an interview.
For example, asking someone to switch from a full-time job to contract-to-hire won't work. If the candidate is unemployed, you can hire them for 1-10 days if you want to "try before you buy".
Would this process be less valuable if you paid the candidates $10-$20/hr each for the time they spent? When a good candidate costs $10k-$20k+?
The 1-2 days was the interview. And what people had was the chance to build something they chose, something that they felt mattered. People who feel that's a waste of time probably wouldn't be the right fit for us.
Everyone in California is employed on at "at-will" basis. That means they are on trial before their employer everyday. 10-day trials don't change the situation or derisk it for employers. It's already derisked.
This weekend was free to anyone who attended, in a good space, and we provided free coffee and drinks. My employer FutureAdvisor bore a burden of several thousand dollars. It's up to candidates to make some effort, too.
The author is saying that she brought the tools required to work, which is more than her former team-mate did. The idea and domain-specific knowledge about making amends was hers. That's not everything, but it's a good start. The other two people volunteered to join her, which means they thought her idea was good.
There were clear flaws to asking non-technical people to participate in a hackathon. But it wasn't the end of the world. Some groups needed to generate copy for the web sites they mocked up, and the writers and editors in the room were useful. In addition, the page flow and decision trees of some apps were clearly superior because experienced people with no coding or design experience had helped determine their structure.
Your second paragraph begs the question. The point of this whole article is that the interview-as-interview concept has problems. The main problem is that interviews don't teach recruiters or hiring managers jack about the interviewees. They are literally useless in gathering information about candidate potential.
The hackathon-as-interview is an attempt to let interviewees transmit the only information that is of any use in hiring: can this person get a job done? do they work well with others? The hackathon is actually great at showing who is capable, committed and professional.
The whole "you're asking for too much time" also misses the point. These events are designed for people who cannot get hired by other means, because their resumes do not present well. Those are precisely the people who DO have time for this sort of event. And despite its flaws, many of them got something out of it.
I congratulate the people who have no time for Staffup Weekend. Their lives are easier than mine. I am still looking to fill several positions, including UX designer and infrastructure engineer. (Those are not the roles I sought to fill with Staffup.) I may have to pay a contingency-based recruiter $35,000 to find them. Is that a good solution? Not really...