undefined | Better HN

0 pointslokar4y ago0 comments

I've read many resumes that seem solid. Then the candidate knows almost nothing. They just lie on the resumes.

I've also talked to people with terrible resumes who turn out to be great. They are just bad at resumes.

0 comments

I second that. It's not necessary about "lying", many candidates may drop a keyword as something they know, when really they have only heard about it instead of mastering it.

Some people also under-rate their skills, because they are very demanding to themselves (the bad ones don't know "sort" and want to re-implement their own sorting method in Python).

I pre-screen using practical problems that I have to solve every day, and when candidates know their UNIX shell commands that's usually a really good sign.

vanusa4y ago

I think the point of GP comment to yours is that by reading resumes skillfully -- that is, between the lines -- and comparing with other factors (e.g. their portfolio) it's pretty easy to tell the "probably solid" from the keyword-stuffers and buzzword droppers.

By "probably solid" I don't mean "immediate hire" but rather "It's a safe bet this person isn't utterly incompetent and I won't be wasting 10 minutes of my time talking to them."

ambrozk4y ago

I do not think it is possible to weed out all or even most of the completely incompetent programmers on the basis of resume screening. My reasoning is, I frequently conduct technical interviews, and a good percentage of those are with candidates lacking basic coding skills, and many of those candidates have impressively written resumes.

1 more reply

faangiq4y ago

Indeed, the point was that resume screening can have >50% accuracy when done right. Unfortunately I’ve seen 5% as the accepted norm in the industry.

KerrAvon4y ago

What is your bar for “terrible”? Resumes are a demonstration of written communication skill — they should at least be competent at expressing certain basic things about the candidate. An underwhelming list of accomplishments or lack of significant prior experience need not be showstoppers, of course.

ambrozk4y ago

I frequently administer technical interviews. For candidates who have passed an initial recruiter screen, I have ascertained no correlation between resume quality and code production. Many, many candidates with extremely impressive resumes are unable to produce basic, working code.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jll294y ago

I second that. It's not necessary about "lying", many candidates may drop a keyword as something they know, when really they have only heard about it instead of mastering it.

Some people also under-rate their skills, because they are very demanding to themselves (the bad ones don't know "sort" and want to re-implement their own sorting method in Python).

I pre-screen using practical problems that I have to solve every day, and when candidates know their UNIX shell commands that's usually a really good sign.

vanusa4y ago

By "probably solid" I don't mean "immediate hire" but rather "It's a safe bet this person isn't utterly incompetent and I won't be wasting 10 minutes of my time talking to them."

ambrozk4y ago

1 more reply

faangiq4y ago

Indeed, the point was that resume screening can have >50% accuracy when done right. Unfortunately I’ve seen 5% as the accepted norm in the industry.

KerrAvon4y ago

ambrozk4y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse