the big thing here is the struggle between companies like amazon google apple who have tons of applicants, and a startup who has less applicants, and less experience from hiring false positives and identifying false negatives. They acknowledge that they turn down many good people, but also most if not all of the people not qualified. They arent worried about false negatives, they are worried about false positives. So they are willing to filter out a good portion of qualified people they aren't quite sure about who might have some overlapping results as people who are not qualified, knowing they are filtering out most if not all unqualified people.
Startups do not have the same level of people experiences to draw conclusions based on interviewing thousands and thousands of applicants and tracking the success of accepted applicants based on a large portfolio of information.
Probably the best thing you can do in a situation like this is GET someone from a company like that who has had years of experience interviewing candidates, and they will be able to bring along that experience of identifying potential false positives from the get go. That is honestly the biggest asset to these companies, their ability to hire and maintain high quality people.
in addition to the countless benefits and opportunities for varied career trajectories in multiple and evolving technologies for smart people once getting into these places, is the fact that they highly value the social network of these work places, and they cannot be duplicated in many places elsewhere, further incentivizing them to stay and internally recommending other high quality friends from elsewhere to interview.
There is no real evidence that companies like Amazon / Google / Apple are actually better than other organizations at filtering out false positives, or that they have struck the optimal balance between false positives and false negatives. These are simply unsupported subjective assertions.
mm, perhaps but I'm echoing documented hiring philosophies of the companies. They are aware they make mistakes. But they feel confident they filter out a majority of false positives along with many false negatives. They have their own metrics for determining this in relation to how many people they hire are able to complete a minimum satisfactory work.
They have documented people who can do this in relation to the people they hire, and even have internal portfolios tracking employees by age, experience, major, and schools, as well as how they performed on interviews. This is a fact.
Everything is subjective. But ultimately a company decides based on its own subjective priorities how an employee meets up to their subjectively defined needs for the position that person fills, and they can pretty onjectively within that context evaluate whether the person can do the work or not, and even track commitments, errors, time to cdoe to completion, amount of bugs, amount of time team has to spend fixing their bugs, etc, and parse out a pretty good idea of performance.
Thats why theres multiple books written by these companies designed to help you pass their interviews, as they have identified indicators of low performance in interviews....
All companies can do this, but many don't, and many arent based in software and therefore do not have embedded ability to track performance metrics the way code commits can.
small companies can do it too, but big companies who also have this system in place can take advantage of larger sets of data for more accurate indicators that seem to correlate with low performance.
Startups do not have the same level of people experiences to draw conclusions based on interviewing thousands and thousands of applicants and tracking the success of accepted applicants based on a large portfolio of information.
Probably the best thing you can do in a situation like this is GET someone from a company like that who has had years of experience interviewing candidates, and they will be able to bring along that experience of identifying potential false positives from the get go. That is honestly the biggest asset to these companies, their ability to hire and maintain high quality people.
in addition to the countless benefits and opportunities for varied career trajectories in multiple and evolving technologies for smart people once getting into these places, is the fact that they highly value the social network of these work places, and they cannot be duplicated in many places elsewhere, further incentivizing them to stay and internally recommending other high quality friends from elsewhere to interview.