|
GeorgieMordor posted:This is good advice. Yep. "Senior" Engineer is also a crap shoot because everyone has different expectations as to what a "Senior" should be able to do or how they can sell themselves. More often than not, you're probably dealing with a hiring team that hasn't actually figured out how to calibrate an actual senior.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Doh004 posted:"Senior" Engineer is also a crap shoot because everyone has different expectations as to what a "Senior" should be able to do or how they can sell themselves. More often than not, you're probably dealing with a hiring team that hasn't actually figured out how to calibrate an actual senior. Interesting. So would it be fair or unfair to say a company advertising a Senior Engineer position could be a red flag to some organizational aspects? My expectation was that Senior defined an engineer who's had exposure and success on both a technical and leadership front. More of a disposition "let's talk through coding what you need" rather than "let's code whatever you tell me to".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
GeorgieMordor posted:Interesting. So would it be fair or unfair to say a company advertising a Senior Engineer position could be a red flag to some organizational aspects? Not necessarily. It's just that the industry is very heavily skewed towards newer folks these days, so EVERYWHERE needs experienced engineers to help provide firepower that's at least done things once or twice before. I view it more of companies putting Senior Engineers up on this pedestal that isn't entirely grounded in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
My experiences have mostly been in line with TMA's post as far as rounds 1 and 2 go. Rounds 3 and 4 have been largely arbitrary system design or take-home assignments. Those trip me up way more substantially. You can tell when the interviewer wants something that you aren't hitting. I'm worried for my next interview loop. Scala is a very contentious language, the community is loving insufferable, and it's all I've written for 18 months, and I have no intention of leaving here anytime soon. But when I do can't wait to bomb these interviews since there are a million ways to write any sort of code.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:Not necessarily. It's just that the industry is very heavily skewed towards newer folks these days, so EVERYWHERE needs experienced engineers to help provide firepower that's at least done things once or twice before. I view it more of companies putting Senior Engineers up on this pedestal that isn't entirely grounded in reality. Yeah, "Senior Engineer" as a title usually tends to have two working definitions; it is either a programmer who is tenured at an org with a strong working understanding of a code base and business space OR a programmer who has substantial experience in the industry with a baked in understanding of at least one language, a capacity to understand systems as a whole, and who has been responsible for leading development of a new feature from conception to rollout. These are not mutually exclusive, but I think there is a tendency for existing "seniors" in an org to more often be the former, while new hires are expected to be the later. I think when orgs are hiring for a "senior" position they are looking for someone who can fill a technical gap quickly, unless there is talk of technical leadership, in which case they are looking for someone who can fulfill higher level functions like planning, scoping, and planning work for other engineers. Also, when talking about interviews, I think a lot of people sometimes miss out on the soft skills side of the equation too. An interview process is kind of like a date. Yeah, you're there to show that you have worth, but you're also there to prove you're a not smelly person who can also hold a conversation, or at least maintain some eye contact, and not get super defensive if someone starts to poke at your solution. Likewise, remember that you are interviewing the org and should be trying to figure out if it's a place YOU want to work. I hold the opinion (on either side of the interview) that if you don't feel great about a prospect after an interview, you should probably pass.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
return0 posted:Uncomfortable with how little controversy there was about code coverage; it is bad! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
Greatbacon posted:Yeah, "Senior Engineer" as a title usually tends to have two working definitions; it is either a programmer who is tenured at an org with a strong working understanding of a code base and business space OR a programmer who has substantial experience in the industry with a baked in understanding of at least one language, a capacity to understand systems as a whole, and who has been responsible for leading development of a new feature from conception to rollout. These are not mutually exclusive, but I think there is a tendency for existing "seniors" in an org to more often be the former, while new hires are expected to be the later. Feel like I may be stumbling on these bits then. I fell into a jack of all trades, master of none type skillset at my last gig which is probably leaving me weak in areas that aren't as apparent to me as they are to the ones I'm interviewing with. Are there specific programming positions that cater to these types of of programmers I should be more actively looking for? What's the best way to find them? Or am I...doomed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
GeorgieMordor posted:Feel like I may be stumbling on these bits then. I fell into a jack of all trades, master of none type skillset at my last gig which is probably leaving me weak in areas that aren't as apparent to me as they are to the ones I'm interviewing with. Are there specific programming positions that cater to these types of of programmers I should be more actively looking for? What's the best way to find them? Generally smaller orgs need less specialization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised that "code coverage is bad" isn't the settled answer. It seems good but then it rewards writing garbage unit tests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:I'm honestly surprised that "code coverage is bad" isn't the settled answer. It seems good but then it rewards writing garbage unit tests. The change in code coverage over {TIME_PERIOD} (a sprint, the past 6 months, the past year) is useful information to answer the question "Are we tending to write new tests for new code?" If the number is going down, that's probably a sign of people being lazy. Of course, code coverage can actually go down if you're refactoring to remove useless/bad tests, so like all metrics, it's information that needs to be contextualized and analyzed, not taken as strictly good or strictly bad on its own. That's why I balk at arbitrary code coverage requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
leper khan posted:Generally smaller orgs need less specialization. I would argue the opposite. Smaller orgs need more specialization because they have more specialized needs and less slack to give someone time to come up to speed on their stack. An engineer in a company with 10k engineers taking 6 months to learn a stack is less of a problem than an engineer at a 10 engineer company taking 6 months, so big orgs are more willing to hire generalists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:I'm honestly surprised that "code coverage is bad" isn't the settled answer. It seems good but then it rewards writing garbage unit tests. It rewards writing unit tests, good or bad. Code reviews should enforce that they are good. If the people you are working don't give a poo poo and just write garbage unit tests to check a box the problem isn't with the coverage metric
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Code coverage is a necessary metric, but it isn't sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Why does it seem like everyone is talking about code coverage like it is only a metric? It's entirely possible and reasonable to use it to find and identify gaps in test coverage without also having some target number required for merging or using it as some sort of success measure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I would argue the opposite. Smaller orgs need more specialization because they have more specialized needs and less slack to give someone time to come up to speed on their stack. An engineer in a company with 10k engineers taking 6 months to learn a stack is less of a problem than an engineer at a 10 engineer company taking 6 months, so big orgs are more willing to hire generalists. I can't speak on behalf of larger orgs, but all of the smaller orgs that I've been a part of have gone with generalists to begin with. This is primarily to offset the potential busfactor of having specialists. I say this as I was brought on initially as a specialist (iOS engineer), but that's a whole different story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Steve French posted:Why does it seem like everyone is talking about code coverage like it is only a metric? It's entirely possible and reasonable to use it to find and identify gaps in test coverage without also having some target number required for merging or using it as some sort of success measure. Correct. That's the best use. Finding stuff that isn't tested and evaluating whether it's worth the effort to write tests for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:I would argue the opposite. Smaller orgs need more specialization because they have more specialized needs and less slack to give someone time to come up to speed on their stack. An engineer in a company with 10k engineers taking 6 months to learn a stack is less of a problem than an engineer at a 10 engineer company taking 6 months, so big orgs are more willing to hire generalists. Your example seems contrived and unrepresentative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:On the other hand, with 10k folks that probably includes "specializations" like QA and technical writing, perhaps a marketer? At 10, those jobs are "you at other times." Have to wear several hats, can't get by with "one stack" no matter how ramped you are. A big org can hire someone who does something niche like security or UX full time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Steve French posted:Why does it seem like everyone is talking about code coverage like it is only a metric? It's entirely possible and reasonable to use it to find and identify gaps in test coverage without also having some target number required for merging or using it as some sort of success measure. I’m guessing it's because they’ve worked places that treated code coverage like it is only a metric? "Management gloms on to metric, uses incorrectly, ignores practitioners' protests" is a common story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
If your management runs in, says that from now on you have 99.99% code coverage and nobody cares how you get there, the problem is in your management, not in code coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have favorable things to say about working with a technical recruiter? Like, an actual...human.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
GeorgieMordor posted:Does anyone have favorable things to say about working with a technical recruiter? Like, an actual...human. They sometimes have access to job openings you as a mere individual don't. Some of them are pleasant to work with. You should still do your own job search. No one else is going to be as invested in securing you a new job as you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:My experiences have mostly been in line with TMA's post as far as rounds 1 and 2 go. Rounds 3 and 4 have been largely arbitrary system design or take-home assignments. Those trip me up way more substantially. You can tell when the interviewer wants something that you aren't hitting. sorry. that sounds rough. the combo of "only so many scala opportunities" + "scala community is split into weird factions" makes it sound like you should expect to get rejected some of the time for not having the right answer about how to do it with shapeless, e.g.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
GeorgieMordor posted:Does anyone have favorable things to say about working with a technical recruiter? Like, an actual...human. There's one recruiter in my local area that has landed me two jobs, one in 2012 and one in 2016. He's one of the rare ones I trust and by no coincidence the only recruiter in my area that I'm working with. It's hard to tell who's trustworthy out there but they exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Remote job search update: this is exhausting. I was invited to fly out for a final interview with the company in Nashville, I'll head out there late next week. I'm very optimistic for that one. I also got a hot lead on a company in Seattle that I saw my old boss, along with a few other Exceptionally Smart People I Once Worked With. My old boss was kind enough to refer me even though I was very green when I worked under him in 2011-2012. I talked to a recruiter and completed and passed a take home project on Monday, and was invited for a Skype interview this week, after which would be a final in-person interview in Seattle. The recruiter seemed to take me much more seriously when I informed her that I was actively working other leads. Because these two jobs are looking really good, I canceled a second tech interview with the small consultancy in St. Louis. They seemed cool but I'm just kind of going with my gut that it wouldn't have been a good fit. On top of all that, an old friend sent me a list of companies he had recently found offering remote work in our .NET/Web field. I sent out a dozen or so applications yesterday and now am setting up two phone screens for later this week. We'll see if I can speed those along fast enough before offers come in from Seattle or Nashville. Oh, and my local recruiter from the post above got me a phone screen with a local-ish company that would allow me to work remote most of the time. Also I have a day job, wife, and kids to handle, and the weather is loving gross. Beer time! Careful Drums fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
GeorgieMordor posted:Does anyone have favorable things to say about working with a technical recruiter? Like, an actual...human. I've met several recruiters in my day.. They generally seem to breathe oxygen and wear clothing. The younger females generally tend to be extraordinarily beautiful. They speak a language vaguely resembling English, but consisting entirely of anecdote and sports/reality TV references.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:The younger females generally tend to be extraordinarily beautiful. Really dude? This industry has enough problems with skeevy behavior, get that out of here. I don't care if you legitimately mean that they tend to pay more attention to their appearance or whatever, that poo poo doesn't bear mentioning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Really dude? This industry has enough problems with skeevy behavior, get that out of here. I don't care if you legitimately mean that they tend to pay more attention to their appearance or whatever, that poo poo doesn't bear mentioning. Uhh, as a homosexual, I'm not objectifying poo poo here. Certain recruiting companies deliberately hire eye candy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:Uhh, as a homosexual, I'm not objectifying poo poo here. Certain recruiting companies deliberately hire eye candy. It was a creepy thing to say, your personal sexual orientation notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Really dude? This industry has enough problems with skeevy behavior, get that out of here. I don't care if you legitimately mean that they tend to pay more attention to their appearance or whatever, that poo poo doesn't bear mentioning. Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:Uhh, as a homosexual, I'm not objectifying poo poo here. Certain recruiting companies deliberately hire eye candy. raminasi posted:It was a creepy thing to say, your personal sexual orientation notwithstanding. If recruiting agencies are hiring based on physical appearance, is that not creepier? Should we give them a pass and make it taboo to talk about? Race shouldn’t play into hiring decisions either, so don’t bring up that the vast majority of programmers are white or asian.  Don’t pretend problems don’t exist just because they’re uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Headhunters can have awful hiring practices and you can put things in a weird manner. It’s not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
Wait, we all think that's the only thing wrong here?Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:They generally seem to breathe oxygen Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:and wear clothing Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:They speak a language vaguely resembling English Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:and sports/reality TV references. And you're going to dismiss entire groups of people for their personal hobbies? Holy poo poo what a toxic post, when you could have been completely unoffensive and nonjudgmental by just saying: Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:Recruiters exist. I have communicated with them and had both positive and less positive experiences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:I've met several recruiters in my day.. They generally seem to breathe oxygen and wear clothing. The younger females generally tend to be extraordinarily beautiful. They speak a language vaguely resembling English, but consisting entirely of anecdote and sports/reality TV references. If I was a recruiter and heard this take, I wouldn't put my reputation at risk placing you at any company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:I've met several recruiters in my day.. They generally seem to breathe oxygen and wear clothing. The younger females generally tend to be extraordinarily beautiful. They speak a language vaguely resembling English, but consisting entirely of anecdote and sports/reality TV references. I can't find the small girl grimacing emoticon but 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Pie Colony posted:I can't find the small girl grimacing emoticon but Are you looking for  ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
 would also be appropriate in this context.But seriously, there are absolutely things you should not say even if they are true, simply because calling them out contributes to a hostile work environment. That includes stuff like "you obviously pay a lot of attention to your looks", let alone "you were hired because of your looks". If you want to start a discussion about the hiring standards that recruiting companies use, you need to tread very carefully. But that's obviously not what you were doing when you said that. You were just making an offhanded comment that you didn't expect to blow up in your face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:Wait, we all think that's the only thing wrong here? Since we're being frank now, this kind of talk diminishes minorities who already have uphill battles to climb. Racism, able-ism, ageism are all real, serious issues. TooMuchAbstraction posted:
I feel like I have to explain crap like this to my smartass kid all the time. "You're not wrong, but that was not a nice thing today and you accomplished nothing good by saying it"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Careful Drums posted:Since we're being frank now, this kind of talk diminishes minorities who already have uphill battles to climb. Racism, able-ism, ageism are all real, serious issues. And how do you determine that I'm not being serious, exactly? Oh, you apply some internal judgment process and act by it, rather than assuming I, too, am virtue signalling furiously. Or we can all go back to gabbing about how big our salaries are while smugly refusing to approach the fact that in most cases they would fund 3 or 4 families if we would stop blowing them on vacations the less fortunate could never dream of, and material goods that the children of those families can't imagine owning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:And how do you determine that I'm not being serious, exactly? Oh, you apply some internal judgment process and act by it, rather than assuming I, too, am virtue signalling furiously. You're right, I can't tell how serious you're being. If it was meant in jest, I apologize. It's hard to tell humor on that level reading posts on a forum. Cuntpunch posted:Or we can all go back to gabbing about how big our salaries are while smugly refusing to approach the fact that in most cases they would fund 3 or 4 families if we would stop blowing them on vacations the less fortunate could never dream of, and material goods that the children of those families can't imagine owning. Agreed, the wealth in tech can be disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:And how do you determine that I'm not being serious, exactly? Oh, you apply some internal judgment process and act by it, rather than assuming I, too, am virtue signalling furiously
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:29
|
|