Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

One Company's Week-Long Interview Process

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the one-more-thing dept.

Businesses 362

jfruh writes "What's the longest tech interview you've had to sit through — two hours? Eight? Ruby on Rails devs who want to work for Hashrocket need to travel to Florida and do pair-programming on real projects for a week before they can be hired. The upside is that you'll be put up in a beachfront condo for the week with your significant other; the downside is that you'll be doing real work for a week for little or no pay and no guarantee of a job slot."

cancel ×

362 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The real downside. (5, Funny)

spinozaq (409589) | about 2 years ago | (#41289355)

Is that you're programming in Ruby on Rails...

Re:The real downside. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289367)

"programming"

Re:The real downside. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289393)

Gropramming

Re:The real downside. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289691)

Rubyists aren't programmers. They are overglorified script kiddies with the same lack of knowledge about what their scripts do behind the scenes. They don't realize that their shitty scripting langauge is one horrendous, inefficient piece of cache-thrashing shit. Hell if you asked them what a 'cache line' was most Rubyists just give you a blank stare. If you want more hilarity try having a Rubyist debug an error in the intrepreter. They get so lost that it's so sad that it's hilarious.

Re:The real downside. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289787)

To be honest I know a lot of good developers that primarily use scripting languages (Ruby, PHP, Python, etc) for their day jobs. They know they aren't the best languages ever developed, but they have fun writing stuff in them and get paid a good amount, because of their skill level. They could tell you exactly how the language works internally as well if you ask them. Not all of the people who write in scripting languages are bad.

Re:The real downside. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289881)

Trollolol. No one enjoys writing in PHP. You gave yourself away too easily, Rubyist.

Re:The real downside. (4, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | about 2 years ago | (#41290165)

Completely untrue. Countless people have enjoyed, and do enjoy programming in PHP. I myself am one.

Yes, I recognize the language's many obvious (and many not-so-obvious) failings, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun using it. There are plenty of ways to write good PHP code (Zend standards/framework, for instance).

PHP's biggest problem aren't its (numerous) issues as a language. PHP's biggest problem are the 90%+ of the "PHP Programmers" who are abhorrently bad at programming in general, and think they're programmers simply because they wrote a little bit of HTML with embedded PHP, or installed Wordpress *shudder*.

Granted, I prefer Python to PHP any day of the week for both fun and function.... Never written any Ruby.

Re:The real downside. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289799)

Then there are those of us who are quite proficient in C++ and x86 and choose to write in modern languages because compute is cheap and dev time (especially the ones who can actually write competent C++) isn't.

Re:The real downside. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289965)

Yeah dev time is cheap until the Rubyist tard can't figure out why their scripts don't work and then leave you with a steaming pile of shit. Then you end up spending more time and money rewriting their shit by someone compentent. Any compentent manager will then realize they should have paid more upfront to save on the backend costs of all the cleanup.

Re:The real downside. (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 years ago | (#41290031)

There will now be a slight pause while we all google "cache line"...

Significant other (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289369)

Where do I send my significant other's resume? I can use a vacation.

Re:Significant other (5, Funny)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about 2 years ago | (#41289905)

Can I just send my significant other? I need a vacation.

Re:Significant other (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41290121)

The idea here is that you go with your significant other, and while s/he's toiling away at this stupid company and working for free all day, you're sitting in the nice beachfront condo they put you up in, relaxing and enjoying the beach, and maybe even getting some nice meals and drinks on the company's dime. Heck, while he's busy programming (assuming it's a he), you can find a short-term boyfriend and have him over at the condo during the day....

Any AFRICAN programmers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289373)

I mean PURE Africans, not '50% white' ones.

You know, the ones whose average IQ is 70.

Re:Any AFRICAN programmers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289533)

As a proud African, I am absolutely disgusted by this comment.

Re:Any AFRICAN programmers? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289587)

LOL!

So, you're "disgusted", and then what? Is your IQ above 70?

Where are the AFRICAN programmers? What have Africans ever given the world? Why are you living in white people's countries? What's wrong with Africa?

NOT ENOUGH WHITE PEOPLE THERE? LOL.

Re:Any AFRICAN programmers? (2)

xevioso (598654) | about 2 years ago | (#41289835)

Why are you feeding the troll?

Re:Any AFRICAN programmers? (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41290159)

Unfortunately, as an African, you apparently haven't spent enough time on Slashdot to realize that almost no good ever comes from reading comments by Anonymous Cowards, and this place is full of filth when you browse at that level. (Of course, it's still full of assholes even if you exclude all the AC comments, but it's not quite as horrible.)

We don't have an HR department (1)

Ashenkase (2008188) | about 2 years ago | (#41289391)

The liability of hiring is being shifted onto the applicant. I hope they have a round of "normal" interviewing before they pack you up and make you live in shipping/receiving... erm... the companies "condo" for a week.

Re:We don't have an HR department (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 2 years ago | (#41289559)

I've been involved in a fair few hires for my previous employer, and it struck me that we *sucked* at making a fair assessment of the applicants' abilities. My experience at other firms have been no different, even though most do manage to weed out the obvious knuckledraggers or spot the shining genius. In contrast, observing someone at actual work for a week should give a far better insight in their abilities and soft skills. This is obviously of benefit to the employer, but also to the prospective employee. The only thing I'd hope is that the company already did a short assessment of the candidate to spot any obvious reasons why he/she woulnd't be hired, before asking them to commit for a week.

Re:We don't have an HR department (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41290209)

This is obviously of benefit to the employer, but also to the prospective employee.

Not really, if you're a weak candidate you might get "lucky", if you're a strong candidate your true value will probably show faster by simply going to more interviews - in fact some of them may overvalue you as well. It's not nearly as bad for you to be passed up for a job that you "should have" gotten as an employer stuck with a lemon hire. The only reason I'd go with this is because I was really desperate that there was this job or no job or that I really, really wanted to work for this company. Since the latter is not the case, I suspect it's a lot of the former and those are not the good candidates. And that doesn't include the possibility of a scam, that they're only using you for free labor with no intent to hire.

This is too much (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289395)

The longest for me is 5 hours but this is ridiculous. The only people that would be able to apply are people who are unemployed. As someone who has interviewed people for programming jobs, it really doesn't take more than 2 hours to figure out if someone is a good fit.

Re:This is too much (4, Insightful)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 years ago | (#41289489)

Seriously. I've been at companies that do all day interviews and those are pointless. Group after group of people come in and ask the people almost identical questions. If it takes you more than an hour or two to determine someone's skill and personality then you are probably doing it wrong. If someone asked me to spend a week working before they would even consider me I'd laugh and tell them to have a great day. If some company I never heard of asked me to book 5+ hours for an interview, I'd tell them no thanks as well, unless I was absolutely desperate. I have better things to do with my time.

Re:This is too much (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#41289513)

The only people that would be able to apply are people who are unemployed.

"I can't believe I wasted 10% of my annual vacation days on this stinking interview" Been there done that.

Re:This is too much (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290103)

10%? Who has 10-week annual vacations?

Re:This is too much (2)

csubi (950112) | about 2 years ago | (#41290153)

50 days paid annual leave? Florida is not France...

Re:This is too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289527)

Fort he thousands of people caught in the "if you don't have a job, you can't get a job" trap, this might actually be a good thing. "I'm sorry, we're looking for someone with current experience" blows.

Re:This is too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290089)

But an unpaid week isn't really going to be much help. For this kind of job, putting a bunch of projects up on github, taking over an abandoned project, and/or contributing to another would help much more, I think.

Re:This is too much (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41290151)

The only people that would be able to apply are people who are unemployed.

Uh, good?

Ugh, Ruby (-1, Troll)

Y2K is bogus (7647) | about 2 years ago | (#41289403)

Yeah, um, ya...

Re:Ugh, Ruby (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41289449)

It's still just a language. It's not like the most common projects are in more enjoyable languages.

Re:Ugh, Ruby (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289901)

Indeed. Ruby (the language) doesn't look too bad. (Although, personally, I'm not a big fan of chucking static typing out the window, but languages like Groovy and Python seem to make it work ok.)

Ruby on Rails is a giant stinking non-scalable piece of shit, though.

Re:Ugh, Ruby (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41289521)

We all have our preferences. If this were about PHP or Java or something, you would likely already have been modded as flamebait.

Re:Ugh, Ruby (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289625)

Yeah, um, ya...

I'm stunned by the utter brilliance of your argument. Clearly, Ruby is a terrible programming language - can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Perhaps not such a bad idea (4, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 2 years ago | (#41289405)

I've been through (and passed) a 2-day assessment centre before, when applying for my first "proper" job. That included exercises designed to simulate the work I'd be doing on appointment - but there's always going to be a degree of artificiality around exercises like that.

It's hugely important to get recruitment right, as a wrong call can have consequences that last months or years. We've all seen cases of the alleged saviour of the universe who gets recruited, only to turn out to be a mediocre employee who trundles along just above the point at which it's worth getting rid of him. Set against that, a week long scrutiny process like this has some merits.

The obvious downside is that by definition, it's pretty much limiting the pool of applicants to those not already in employment. People already working full time will likely struggle to vanish for a full week, particularly if they have family committments that place demands on their vacation time.

Probably illegal. (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41289427)

Violation of labor laws. This is illegal. They have people doing full time work for less than minimum wage. The fact that they call it an "interview" is hardly a reasonable distinction. I hope the idiots involved suck a nice 6 or 7 digit fine for this.

Re:Probably illegal. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289471)

They probably just call it an "internship."

Captcha: Pretend.

Re:Probably illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289609)

That, or "volunteer" work

Re:Probably illegal. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289499)

This happens in restaurants every day. Cooks work a few shifts for free prior to being hired. The French term is stagiare. The difference is cooks work for free to get minimum wage jobs.

Re:Probably illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289895)

When I was a kid I worked in restaurants and I've never heard of a low level line cook working for free. I can imagine at higher end restaurants that being the case, but not low end places that would pay minimum wage (waffle house, ihop, etc). Do you have any references to that in the US?

Re:Probably illegal. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289579)

1 week beachfront condo rental is compensation. As long as that is over minimum wage (~$300/wk at $7.35/hr), then it's probably legal.

maybe how they get away with it (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41289829)

Especially if its 1080 comped (food cable ect) so you don't have any expenses during that week. Still its slimy for them to do it this way.

I've done simular... (5, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#41289429)

only to be told that I finished the project during the interview process and my services would no longer be needed. They then had the audacity to contact me months later to see if I wanted another go at working for them. Free labor is free labor, dont fall for it unless you REALLY need to.

Re:I've done simular... (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#41289703)

Scheherazade figured this out N-thousand years ago. The key is to never finish. Start the next project before the current one is completed. Always keep several projects in a state of "working incompleteness". See also, the BOFH.

Re:I've done simular... (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#41289753)

There is also the old Russian engineering philosophy, "never design a plane that can fly if you're in prisson".

Re:I've done simular... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289791)

Yes I'm sure it had nothing to do with the way you spell similar.

Re:I've done simular... (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 2 years ago | (#41289911)

It's one key to the left, cut me some slack the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Re:I've done simular... (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about 2 years ago | (#41289947)

Well obviously you would build a back door into the project that you can use to shut it down remotely if they don't hire you, right?

Re:I've done simular... (1)

alphax45 (675119) | about 2 years ago | (#41290041)

This! They want to be slimy, be slimy right back. Although they might be paying your expenses (food, etc) for the week. Depends on the details...

Not that bad. (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41289451)

If you think about it. If you are currently at a job, you can get vacation pay, for that week, you get to see if the company is really a good fir for you. Also the company sees if you are a good fit for it.

Now if the company just doesn't hire people. Then there is a problem. Because they just found a way to get free labor. However I don't see that the case because it is really hard to do a lot of real work the first week.

Re:Not that bad. (2)

theNetImp (190602) | about 2 years ago | (#41289563)

Yeah just what I want to use my vacation pay for. Screw that.

Re:Not that bad. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289581)

Yeah, right. What did you say was your connection to hashrocket?

Re:Not that bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289951)

"Director of Social Media"

Re:Not that bad. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41289677)

I can imagine a case where I would do this if the work was obviously contrived as a test. I'd have to be pretty desperate (Just to consider working on Ruby would require me to be very desperate, as long is it didn't involve mySQL it would still be better then starving.)

If they wanted me to do real coding on their real projects I would just take the weeks free rent/airfare/zero cost vacation and not do a lick of work. I wouldn't consider the interview done until the hiring manager threw a tantrum.

Re:Not that bad. (3, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 2 years ago | (#41290133)

So I go into my boss' office and say "So I need a week off next week to go down to Florida and do the world's most insane interview. Do you mind?" I mean, it's not like this is the sort of thing you can plan for months in advance and come up with a reasonable reason that you need the week off. If I ask my boss for a week off next month without any details, he might go for it without questions, but next week? He'll want to know who died. This is ignoring the fact that I like to use my vacation time for... ya know... vacation?

Re:Not that bad. (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | about 2 years ago | (#41290201)

This would be a good deal for someone collecting unemployment who wants to polish up their Ruby on Rails skills.

They've Been Doing This For Years (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41289475)

I know somebody who did this, about 4 years ago.

The ironic thing -- or funny, I suppose, depending on your point of view -- is that Hashrocket did not hire him. He's one of the best programmers I know (I know a lot), and he was also quite familiar with their development process. He taught it in college.

I think it's a pretty good bet that Hashrocket made a mistake in his case. He went on to work for other prestigious companies.

Re:They've Been Doing This For Years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289631)

Did they make a mistake, or did he? If he's so good, why is he agreeing to work for free, just to beg for a job? When I'm considering a job, they have to convince me that they're worth working for, not the other way around.

Re:They've Been Doing This For Years (1)

xaoslaad (590527) | about 2 years ago | (#41289633)

Not that I agree with this B.S., as it is probably illegal, but maybe his knowledge wasn't the problem. Maybe it was personality or culture fit?

Re:They've Been Doing This For Years (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41290017)

It's possible, but you don't know this guy. I don't see that being a problem unless they have pretty weird personalities or culture.

Re:They've Been Doing This For Years (2)

tsa (15680) | about 2 years ago | (#41289679)

I think Hashrocket invited him so he could solve a particularly nasty problem for them for free.

Re:They've Been Doing This For Years (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41289717)

How do you know that they wanted to hire him in the first place? They probably just wanted some free workforce.

Sounds like a good idea (1)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#41289483)

This does seem to be one of he best ways to vet potential employees out there. The best way to see whether someone is a good fit for your company is to see what they can do; see how they can work, rather than ask them questions that don't really have anything to do with what the company is doing.

I'm guessing that most companies aren't going to want to spend the time and money to vet employees this thoroughly, though. But for a small company, it can be well worth it.

Re:Sounds like a good idea (4, Interesting)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 2 years ago | (#41289583)

Unless the company pays way above market rates, why would I go through this? I can understand if you're fresh out of college trying to prove yourself, but otherwise, I would skip it.

It's not like it's a prestigious company.

Re:Sounds like a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289729)

This is the best way to filter out the stellar candidates before the interview. What self-respecting developer would put up with this crap? Even google doesn't demand a week of your time.

Re:Sounds like a good idea (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41290169)

Exactly. Any good programmer wouldn't need to put up with such crap to get a job. Why do 1 week of unpaid work when you already have 6 other offers already. Pffffffft.

Of COUSE it's good for the company (1)

sirwired (27582) | about 2 years ago | (#41289845)

Of COURSE this process is good for the company. They get an entire week of work for the cost of a beachfront condo they probably usually let executives use for free.

For the applicant, it's a really lousy deal, especially if they are not currently unemployed.

Re:Of COUSE it's good for the company (2)

s73v3r (963317) | about 2 years ago | (#41290233)

37signals does something similar, just without the beachfront condo part. However, I believe they pay you as a contractor while they audition you.

Re:Sounds like a good idea (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | about 2 years ago | (#41290245)

I think I am going to start looking for jobs by telling them to send me a week's pay upfront, so I can really get a feel for working for them.

6 Grueling Hours. (3, Informative)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#41289491)

It wasn't enough that the position I was interviewing for was for someone who got promoted out of it. And I knew him (but not that I was interviewing for his job, until I got there) we of course hit it off, but his boss was the one that needed convincing. I get showed around, described the job, I take some tests, where I ace them, save for the questions that were either asked poorly or the answers wrong (2 out of 20) and we all agreed I was an exact match, and even slightly over-qualified. We got this feeling early on, but they continued to grill me through the full battery of people and tests. After 6 hours (We get a1/2hr for lunch)

We finish up, call the recruiter it looks good... They elect not to make an offer because I would be too good for the job. never mind the pay was better, the location was better, the industry was better and it was a topic I was very interested in.

Re:6 Grueling Hours. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289641)

>> They elect not to make an offer because I would be too good for the job.

Amazing that they could say that with a straight face. More amazing is that you actually believed them.

Re:6 Grueling Hours. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290073)

How is that amazing? It's possible they did think he was over qualified for the job. Business don't generally hire over qualified people, because they'll jump ship soon as a better position opens up that is at their real level.

NO WAY (1)

lancesnyder (1099535) | about 2 years ago | (#41289519)

This is absolute crap. They're getting free labor pretty much and most likely paying you absolutely nothing or next to nothing. I would contact the Better Business Bureau and the Department of Labor about this practice, this cannot be legal... unless you were stupid enough to sign something that says you waive all rights blah blah blah and consent to blah blah blah

How 'bout fuck that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289537)

Seriously.

...and if you do this, you are stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289555)

Not only are you stupid, you are working for a stupid company.

Don't do it (3, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#41289557)

You are already bending over and taking it, before you are even employed. You are working hours you won't get paid for, and they already have the upper hand in this "relationship"

Re:Don't do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289889)

You are already bending over and taking it, before you are even employed. You are working hours you won't get paid for, and they already have the upper hand in this "relationship"

Perhaps when you're looking for your next job, you should consider dropping from the list industries whose work you contrast negatively with getting fucked in the ass.

Unless you're already in the professional "getting fucked in the ass" business, in which case I suggest you reread TFA as it's not in your field.

By a scruffy guy with a Cane?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41289565)

House MD season 4 was mostly an extended "interview" with a crowd of medical folks.
I would have thought that this was FICTIONAL. (and at least DR House was decent enough to PAY them (until they got hit with ROW D YOUR FIRED!)).

I wish we did this. (2)

mekkab (133181) | about 2 years ago | (#41289601)

a 20-60 min interview over the phone isn't enough. People can talk a good game and sound intelligent when answering my open ended "How do you solve/approach this asynchronous timing window?" questions. You may have spent 10 years in the industry, but you may not have the right mix of skills to get tasks completed. Then I go and waste months training them up and they just don't work out.

Re:I wish we did this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289709)

Perhaps its your training technique that is the problem?

Re:I wish we did this. (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41290063)

Yeah, it's never the fault of the person training the new hires. It always must be the other people. *rolls eyes* Either this guy is a bad judge of talent and potential or he's a terrible teacher. Either way, he should be laying the blame on himself.

Re:I wish we did this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289767)

>you may not have the right mix of skills to get tasks completed

Ya, because *your* computer science is different from everyone else's. Unless you mean you code is total crap and "mix of skills" includes masochism.

Re:I wish we did this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290187)

Wow that's baffling. In the biotech industry the interview schedule goes like this: 30 minute phone interview with the HR department to see if you should even talk to the hiring manager. 30-60 minute phone interview with the hiring manager to see if you should have an in person interview. These two steps are serious business and both cull applicants. For the in person interview you fly in (local interviews are rare) on day one, have a one to two hour long dinner with the hiring manager and possibly their boss. Day two you have a one on one interview with the hiring manager, a facilities tour, and then for scientist level positions a 45 minute job talk plus 15 minutes of Q&A, the audience may include those listening in at another facility via skype or whatever. Then you'll round out the day with three to five panel interviews with fellow scientists, probably one panel composed of 3-4 technicians, lunch is another panel interview plus food, a one on one with the hiring manager's boss, usually another one on one with the hiring manager's boss's boss, and then a wrap up with HR and/or the hiring manager. I've never had an interview last less than eight hours and the longest was 13 hours. This is for industry postdocs and scientist I positions, so only a PhD plus 2-7 years experience is expected of the applicant.

ehrmagerd!!! sperc werk! (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#41289721)

this sounds like spec work. which is a big no-no for anyone with nothing to prove.

Our company does this for 6 months... (4, Informative)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | about 2 years ago | (#41289739)

but we pay them inflated contractor wages. For the most part, we don't hire anyone direct, but convert contractors to full-time.

Agile methodology... (5, Funny)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | about 2 years ago | (#41289849)

With one-week sprints.

Wow...really? This scam is still around... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41289863)

...and people are still falling for it. This IS a scam, and it's been around for a long time (I ran into it in the late 80's). This is absolutely NOT on the up and up. They generally target unemployed programmers.

Re:Wow...really? This scam is still around... (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41290085)

They're not going to get a lot from a week, surely. Most companies would consider this to be ramp-up time.

Paid contract? (5, Interesting)

i_ate_god (899684) | about 2 years ago | (#41289865)

I had an interview for an out of city employer. It resulted in me being given a PAID two week contract to see if I'm worth hiring. I forget what it was I made, but I was paid $2000.

that $2000 was part of my moving expenses if I was hired, and if I was not, I still got $2000, because I signed a contract stating if I finished the work on time, I get $2000.

This seemed like a good way to do things and benefits both the company and myself. I get money, company gets proof I can not only code, but be professional (meetings on time, meeting deadlines, etc).

Re:Paid contract? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290037)

You only got paid $2000 for 2 weeks of full-time work? You got scammed, bro. They paid you a pittance for your effort.

I am with the "don't work for free" crowd (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#41289935)

If it takes someone a week to figure out if their candidate is "the right fit" they're either doing it wrong or they're angling for free development work. Personally, I believe that anyone but a true PHB could figure out how inefficient is the latter case. So that leaves us with the former, in which case they're probably a bad bet as a prospective employer. Now, careful evaluation does need to be done, but if it can't be done in a day or two, tops, I'm suspicious.

I think we've found the next IT business model... (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 years ago | (#41289955)

...perpetual "working" interviews.

Never hire anyone, of course, so you never pay for salaries, FICA, health care, vacation, paycheck distribution...

Next step: require that the interviewee simply telecommute in with their own computer. Now you don't even have to worry about covering transportation costs, desk space, office supplies...

Genius, I tell ya. Evil genius, of course. But still.

Filter for top talent? (1)

rainmayun (842754) | about 2 years ago | (#41289963)

My current employer already has a problem getting otherwise bright & capable candidates to submit code samples against a simple problem that take experienced devs all of a couple of hours to do. They decide the hurdles to hire elsewhere are lower, and don't bother to finish our problem. Yeah, you might say maybe we don't want them, but the truth is that sometimes we do, and it takes a very long time to fill some of our positions since top talent has their pick of jobs. The core issue is that they don't generally know us as a company before the hire process begins, and therefore have no personal incentive to prefer us ahead of time. We aren't Google, we don't have Google's reputation, and we aren't going to become Google anytime soon.

"We aren't Google" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290095)

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

Just a week? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290001)

A week sounds long... but honestly, every time I have started coding at a new company, it has taken me at least 2 (more often 4) weeks to learn my way around their code-base. I suspect the first few days would be lost learning their tools, coding style, and architecture (is the client data in Postgress or LDAP?, what persistence library are you using, and what's your pattern for using it? Same with you MVC structure.) Etc Etc.

ugh: pair programming (1)

CoderFool (1366191) | about 2 years ago | (#41290027)

IMHO full-time pair programming is a waste of a good developer or a shield for a bad developer. The only time I have seen it really work is for debugging or code review.

Re:ugh: pair programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290229)

It's a better way of training up the bad developer than having him do homework on unrelated problems and having a few better developers take extra time to grade his work.

Bah (3)

lessthan (977374) | about 2 years ago | (#41290059)

A week is nothing. When I went for the Marines, it turned out that the interview process was 3 months!!

Three week interview (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41290091)

I did a *three* week interview process at Menlo Innovations, in Ann Arbor Michigan, back in 2006. They paid about half of what I normally make. This was the third phase, after a 3-hour interview, and a 1-day interview.

I actually thought it was an *excellent* process. I learned a LOT, they learned a lot about me. It was a terrible fit, and I disagree vehemently with the overall way they work. (*Extreme* XP.) But based on what I learned, I feel like I should have paid them.

Back in my DOS Clipper days... (1)

MooseDontBounce (989375) | about 2 years ago | (#41290215)

I interviewed with a consulting company. After 3 interviews, tech exam, etc. the final thing they wanted me to do was go to one of their client's sites and do something. (Don't remember exactly what now.) I respectfully declined to go to one of their customers. That was the last I heard from that company.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>