Why? The experience and intelligence of the recruiter has almost zero correlation to the experience and intelligence of the people you'd be working with.
Recruiting people / HR are just an administrative barrier to get through. Once you speak to the actual team you'd be working with, you can start being more discerning of the quality of the people.
Good recruiters are able to match a candidate's skills with the skills required for the role they're recruiting for. If they can't do that, they are bad at their job and are more often than not wasting the time you could be spending with a recruiter who knows the industry they're working in.
If they got that aspect wrong, what else are they getting wrong? Are you willing to waste time and money going through the interview process just to find out that the role isn't a good fit, even though the recruiter said it was?
You should pretend the recruiter - any recruiter is a compulsive liar, and put exactly zero value on whether or not they claim the role is a good fit. They are never going to interact with you again, they may not understand you or the role, and they are financially incentivised to bullshit to you.
Ignore what they say, and judge whether or not the role is a good fit for yourself. I wouldn't hold a good recruiter as a positive sign for a job, nor would I hold a shitty recruiter as a red flag.
Everyone is trying to help each other; don't let go of potentially great opportunities due to these misconceptions.
Hiring is the most important thing managers do. If they suck at that it really doesn’t matter if they are great at other things.
they churn out these job requirements daily
the person you speak with on the phone wasn't involved with writing it, just correct them and get to the first technical person as soon as possible.
this is done at companies of all sizes, whether it is IBM, Google, Uber, Pinterest, as well as expected in non-tech companies.
you guys are in for a rude awakening if you think this is still an employees market in choosing companies based on the smallest, most irrelevant and nuanced signals of operational efficiency
Could I have been wrong? Of course. All I said was I was dis-interested, I had better opportunities with people who I understood and who understood me.
That's really lucky.
There are a lot of people who don't value my skillset who I thought should, and it isn't clear if people reach out to me because they like something I brought to the world that has caught on now, or if it is a totally random recruitment bot sending transactional messages.
All while the things I was working on over the last decade were not respected at the time I was working on them.
For employment, seems better for me to use variations of my name and more generic experience. Otherwise people just seem to want to have me in the room but not really interested in hiring me, or like they expect a more mythical and profound experience.
Really? Because I've seen them copy/paste job requirements and just spitball the "years exp" number. They're just trying to fill as many roles as possible, and getting IT folks to put together job requirements is time consuming, so they often re-use old requirement and only update the language/tech on it.
I've seen multiple job postings for my teams where somewhere in the HR->recruiting pipeline the (correct) job requirements were replaced with "standard" requirements.
Having been both a manager and an IC I strongly believe that hiring is of the utmost importance. The same thoughtfulness, care, and responsibility that goes into leading engineering teams that are in charge of mission critical systems must extend to the hiring process or else everything else is at risk. A single bad or even just not great hire can be devastating to a team. A company with a culture that is just recruiters funneling candidates thoughtlessly is guaranteed to fail over time.
Sure if you need a job or aren’t in an employees market you might have to suck it up and take that job. I get that. I would advise saving a lot more than usual as that charade of hoop jumping is going to result in layoffs/bankruptcy in the mid to long term. Also, don’t expect them to be any more thoughtful in the layoffs than they were in the hiring.
Sure a lot of big companies do thoughtless hiring and that might work for awhile when you just need to scale thoughtlessly but a lot of big companies also get their lunch eaten by smaller companies with more thoughtful managers (ex. IBM, MSFT pre Nadella, possibly Google now)
How do you figure? If you're perfectly qualified for a job and they don't seem to recognize that, what are they selecting for? You don't think that incompetence would have an impact on the quality of the team you'd be joining?
It shouldn't. A well-run company should refuse to work with recruiters who lack experience and intelligence.
My assumption is, a team needs personel and so the team manager makes a request to hr with a list of requirements for said recruit. Or at least that's how it seems like it should be.
Along the way, should not someone who put together that list of requirements have some idea of what they were asking for?
I've only worked at small enough business we had one general manager in charge of hiring. If one of the sections of our work needed employees, job postings would be created with those specific positions in mind, with the specific requirements of that position figured out by usually the most experienced person in that position and passed along to the manager.
Again, this may just be my ignorance, but, if it wasn't the hr person that wrote the requirements, wouldn't it have been someone that should have known better?
If they are so stupid as to do this, I wouldn’t want to work for them either.
HR is where things can go very wrong.
So lie. It's what they want.
And if you don't, someone else will.
Perhaps we need recruiter-baiters: people who will, as a hobby, intentionally get recruiters to pass them on to companies, at which point they will (under an assumed identity) say or do something so egregious that it will poison the recruiter’s relationship with the company.
I'm not even that old (born in the 80s), but is that the style adults use now?
That’s a pretty standard meaning for that emoji, despite the subtle shade of its meaning, because it’s quite common on Twitter or Instagram that you want to humble-brag about “what they missed out on”, but you also want to make it explicit that you realize that you’re doing so (a bit like sarcasm-flagging.)
The fourth line’s emoji is presumably a substitute for a “refresh” (or more precisely, “recompute”) icon, since we don’t actually have one of those.
...which is rather uncommon usage; but the proper emotion (“knowing but non-judgemental stare, as if a parent waiting for their child to figure out that they’re supposed to close the fridge after taking something from it”) isn’t a standard Unicode emoji... yet. (But nearly every Discord group I’m in has a custom one for that purpose!)
tip: stop using facebook.
> It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI.
> I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing.
https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830