Most active commenters
  • greenie_beans(6)
  • randomdata(4)
  • trentnix(3)
  • InsideOutSanta(3)

←back to thread

Looking for a Job Is Tough

(blog.kaplich.me)
184 points skaplich | 38 comments | | HN request time: 1.478s | source | bottom
Show context
thw09j9m ◴[] No.42132752[source]
This is the toughest market I've ever seen. I easily made it to on-sites at FAANG a few years ago and now I'm getting resume rejected by no-name startups (and FAANG).

The bar has also been raised significantly. I had an interview recently where I solved the algorithm question very quickly, but didn't refactor/clean up my code perfectly and was rejected.

replies(12): >>42132828 #>>42132878 #>>42132900 #>>42132935 #>>42133185 #>>42133278 #>>42138532 #>>42138559 #>>42139442 #>>42140920 #>>42143310 #>>42145184 #
trentnix ◴[] No.42132828[source]
I’m not sure the bar has been raised. It’s been weirded, but not raised.
replies(2): >>42132918 #>>42136416 #
1. realityfactchex ◴[] No.42132918[source]
Weirded how, if you don't mind elaborating slightly?

For example, does it mean: the actual skill level (e.g., smartness) people actually look for and hire hasn't changed, but the activities that hiring teams require candidates to have experience with are (seemingly weirdly) not a great thing to need anyway and therefore lots of great candidates end up twiddling their thumbs?

In that way, the "height" of the bar is the same, but it's a "weird" bar, in that one could have to accept it for what it is, or even stoop to it, or perhaps shift over to it, in order to pass it?

Or more that the overall interview experiences are weird caricatures in and of themselves?

Weird is a great word, but it can be a little non-specific, so I'm left curious about the intended usage/meaning.

replies(2): >>42132962 #>>42133003 #
2. trentnix ◴[] No.42133003[source]
Many companies are filtering candidates in favor of mercenaries while pretending they are looking for dependable, committed professionals.

If you don’t have specific experience with some CTOs favorite esoteric API or don’t have experience in the same, specific corner of some insurance or usury industry, your ability to actually engineer solutions is considered irrelevant.

It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about the application of algorithms to data structures to accomplish some user need. Instead, company after company wants to hot glue some service via some API using some framework on some cloud platform. And because the MBA decision-maker can write Excel macros with GPT, we don’t need programmers to build systems anymore. Just wire up foo SaaS to bar SaaS and MVPFailFastLeanAgile our way to success!

Sorry for the rant…

replies(4): >>42133054 #>>42136301 #>>42137161 #>>42138117 #
3. realityfactchex ◴[] No.42133054[source]
Thanks, much appreciated
4. MrVandemar ◴[] No.42133108[source]
> It hurts when you see posh privileged urban women having much more chance of getting into a good company than a man who worked his way up through sacrifice.

It's not a gender issue. I would be looking to hire someone competent who works hard, not someone who makes "sacrifices" and then expects a job/promotion.

The latter never works. That's not the work culture in most places. I've seen it many times, people who make "sacrifices", allowing themselves to be exploited, expecting some promotion from it, and are then passed over for someone who actually has demonstrated they are good at the job and ready for more responsibility, and not being a doormat. Then they become resentful.

Don't be bitter. Be better.

replies(4): >>42134303 #>>42134686 #>>42136309 #>>42139933 #
5. sambapa ◴[] No.42134303{3}[source]
But they are better, that's his point lolwut
replies(1): >>42134638 #
6. MrVandemar ◴[] No.42134638{4}[source]
That is not the poster's point.

The poster contends women are being prejudicially hired as "diversity" rather men who have "sacrificed" and worked hard.

"lolwut" indeed.

replies(2): >>42134868 #>>42136321 #
7. dartos ◴[] No.42136301[source]
Yeah well what do recruiters know about software development?

They just know the keywords the EMs and C suite sent them in the headcount request.

replies(1): >>42136348 #
8. greenie_beans ◴[] No.42136308[source]
> * Diversity hiring: Big US/EU companies are trying to hire more females here because cost is low and they can show great diversity numbers. It hurts when you see posh privileged urban women having much more chance of getting into a good company than a man who worked his way up through sacrifice.

do you have any examples of this happening? or is this just a boogie man?

my experience has been different: so many mediocre men in this industry. all of the women i've worked with have been brilliant.

replies(4): >>42136419 #>>42136629 #>>42136878 #>>42139330 #
9. randomdata ◴[] No.42136321{5}[source]
Right, but certain careers have figured out that women are, on average, better at the socialization game and thus, broadly speaking, a better fit for the job. Ain't nobody "diversity" hiring on the oil rigs or other jobs where the physical act is more important than interpersonal interaction.

However, it is difficult to measure those positive traits for what they are, so employers are selecting based on gender hoping for positive correlation. But that's illegal, so "diversity" hiring was created as a scapegoat to help avoid legal fire.

replies(1): >>42136441 #
10. greenie_beans ◴[] No.42136326{4}[source]
> From my experience there are relatively few women who really get in the trenches.

have you ever heard of the word "bias"?

> Staring at logs in a terminal and sifting through endless YAML not so much.

i did not know that one gender could be better at this work. that seems like huge news if true.

and yes, you sound like a reactionary. coward ass throwaway account.

replies(2): >>42136442 #>>42137715 #
11. trentnix ◴[] No.42136348{3}[source]
That EMs and the C-suite think solving their engineering needs is to add "headcount" is the bigger problem.
replies(1): >>42136479 #
12. latentcall ◴[] No.42136351{6}[source]
Your perceived truth maybe. The truth you’re looking for to fit your world view.
replies(1): >>42142190 #
13. InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.42136398{4}[source]
This has not been my experience. The women I've worked with in software engineering teams have all been, well, engineers. One of them worked on some kind of real-time printer operating system before becoming a Java dev, another one is currently team lead on the cluster team on a distributed software product, another one has the most in-depth knowledge of CSS of anyone in a 50+ people frontend department.

I see a lot of people online complaining about the job market and blaming all kinds of things for their inability to find a job, but I think what has changed is that there are no more defensive hires, where companies like Google hire as many people as possible just to deny their competitors those people. Lots of relatively unqualified people found very high-paying jobs that way and are now surprised that they can't land those jobs anymore.

If you're competent and personable and know your own strengths, you can still find a job relatively easily.

Coincidentally, I was fired during the tech downturn two years ago, and within a few weeks, had three job offers out of three applications. I have a good CV, I applied at local companies that matched my specific expertise, I asked how the interview would go and what was expected, and prepared specifically for each company.

Complaining about women because you can't find a job isn't just misguided, it's harmful to yourself, because it prevents you from understanding what the actual issue is, and working on it.

replies(1): >>42139953 #
14. InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.42136418{6}[source]
Are you asserting that companies in a free market are intentionally hiring people unqualified for their jobs and paying them wages as if they were qualified?

To what end?

replies(1): >>42136461 #
15. randomdata ◴[] No.42136442{5}[source]
> i did not know that one gender could be better at this work. that seems like huge news if true.

There is research that has shown that men are, on average, better at single-focus tasks. And, indeed, it was huge news at the time the research was published – at least as huge as being reported in major news publications is.

It wouldn't be huge news now. We quickly grow bored and tired of widely reported things from the past. Humans, of all genders it seems, tend to seek novelty.

replies(1): >>42136792 #
16. AlexMoffat ◴[] No.42136464{4}[source]
The words you're looking for aren't conservative or reactionary they are bigoted and asshole. Best software engineer I've ever worked with is a woman, the rest had exactly the same range of ability as the men. Overall though a much lower level of entitled ignorance than "guys like us".
replies(1): >>42137743 #
17. dartos ◴[] No.42136479{4}[source]
That’s what they thought in 2021.

Now that money isn’t free, they think the problem is too many engineers.

18. kmmlng ◴[] No.42136629{3}[source]
I always got the feeling that the distributions were different for men and women. Male professionals seem to be normally distributed, with a lot of mediocrity, some excellence, and some incompetence. In women, the mediocrity part of the population seems to be missing, so the distribution looks more bimodal.

If that's actually the case and not just a warped perception on my part, it could easily happen that, depending on your own skill-level and environment, you'll be more likely to work with one of the two groups in the bimodal distribution.

19. greenie_beans ◴[] No.42136792{6}[source]
please share this, i'm dying to read this.
replies(1): >>42137519 #
20. squeaky-clean ◴[] No.42136863{4}[source]
It's so peculiar that the man who thinks few women are willing to "get in the trenches" never sees women really getting into the trenches. It must definitely be because that's just how all women are. And definitely not because most women choose not to work with you or a company that perpetuates that idea.
replies(1): >>42137825 #
21. scott_w ◴[] No.42137161[source]
> It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about...

This really isn't new. A look at Slashdot will give you similar complaints as far back as at least the 2000s. I'm sure someone older than me will dig up Usenet posts with exactly the same complaints and tell me to get off their lawn ;-)

replies(1): >>42155697 #
22. randomdata ◴[] No.42137519{7}[source]
RIP
replies(1): >>42137948 #
23. kjksf ◴[] No.42137715{5}[source]
Name a prominent open source project created be and led by a woman.

Who created and contributes to linux kernel, python, c, c++, go, python, ruby, ruby on rails, php, wordpress, ghost, SumatraPDF, zig, oding, nim, nodejs, deno, bun.

I could just keep listing major open source projects because I literally cannot think of a single one created and led by a woman.

And if you find one, it still doesn't negate the 100 to 1 ratio.

Open source, unlike jobs, are pure meritocracy. A woman can create a GitHub account and start coding just as easily as a man. There are no gatekeepers and open source contributors / maintainers are abused by random people as a matter of course.

To me it's reality. To you, somehow, saying that out loud is bias.

And to be clear: I don't think there's anything preventing women from learning to code and contributing at a high level and I've known a few that do. But for some reason they overwhelmingly don't. The stats are brutal.

replies(1): >>42137847 #
24. throw111424 ◴[] No.42137743{5}[source]
I don't doubt this. But it's the exception to the rule, isn't it?
25. throw111424 ◴[] No.42137825{5}[source]
> It's so peculiar that the man who thinks few women are willing to "get in the trenches" never sees women really getting into the trenches.

I have seen women in the trenches but I don't see how that contradicts my claim that they are relatively few and there's probably a reason despite all the efforts to bring more women into tech.

26. greenie_beans ◴[] No.42137847{6}[source]
go ask claude to give you feedback about this comment, because it shows a misunderstanding of how a male-dominated society works if this is what you think about women in tech.

edit: nvm i did about this entire comment thread: https://claude.site/artifacts/b1f6e916-a21b-420b-9081-dec62b... and specifically responding to all of your claims: https://claude.site/artifacts/401d407d-ef53-4cdf-84fd-cd79b5...

27. greenie_beans ◴[] No.42137948{8}[source]
dang, i guess i'll die never knowing the truth
replies(1): >>42138109 #
28. randomdata ◴[] No.42138109{9}[source]
I assumed you were already dead by the time I got to reading your response. One does not normally tell you that they are dying if they expect to still be around for a long time. Shame on me for assuming. What is the expected lifespan for someone diagnosed with your condition?
replies(1): >>42138517 #
29. svilen_dobrev ◴[] No.42138117[source]
> It’s as if the industry has forgotten that building software is about the application of algorithms to data structures to accomplish some user need

My 3 months experience searching - and getting only ~3-4 initial interviews - is the New-AI-Kids-on-Da-Block think software-engineering is just another plumbing for their Artificially Great Intelligence. One CEO even used the exact word.

waw. Plumbers make real good $$$..

replies(1): >>42138936 #
30. greenie_beans ◴[] No.42138517{10}[source]
i'm posting from the grave!!
31. namaria ◴[] No.42138936{3}[source]
They are just saying the quite part out loud now because they think they can finally get away with that.

Well when the discount plumbing they are getting put in starts to leak shit all over the place there will be a premium again in actually knowing how to do it properly.

replies(1): >>42139539 #
32. consteval ◴[] No.42139330{3}[source]
I've had the same experience, and I've reasoned it as follows:

It's very difficult to be a woman in Computer Science. CompSci is uniquely awful for women. Like other STEM, it's overrun by men, so you get all the subtle discrimination of that. But CompSci men also tend to be, for lack of a better word, asocial weirdos. Civil engineers have to work with people, CompSci people built up their skills in front of a screen.

All this means that the large majority of women are filtered out. The ones that remain are the ones most skilled with navigating tough situations, and who have a strong passion for engineering. A passion strong enough to wade through the downsides.

I also think they have to constantly prove themselves, which also builds up their skills.

33. hombre_fatal ◴[] No.42139539{4}[source]
Though getting a job at the fixer consultancies they might use isn't any easier. :P
34. norwalkbear ◴[] No.42139933{3}[source]
I think it does work, just look who won the presidential election thanks to Men
35. norwalkbear ◴[] No.42139953{5}[source]
That has not been my experience consulting at many big videogame companies.

Lately my bread and butter is fixing legacy game engines. I have yet to meet a ciswoman tech lead who can do this work.

replies(1): >>42144807 #
36. sambapa ◴[] No.42142190{7}[source]
The best track on elseq 4
37. InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.42144807{6}[source]
When I studied comp sci around 2000, women were actively discouraged from continuing their classes by professors. During an oral exam, a prof told a female friend of mine that women had no place in comp sci. As a result, not many women graduated, so two decades ago, there were just fewer women in the field in general.

I'm not sure what exactly qualifies as a "legacy game engine", but given the small number of women who worked in comp sci when games were made ten or twenty years ago, and particularly in male-dominated videogame studios, I would naturally not expect to see a lot of cis women with experience working on these engines (or on related tech stacks) today.

This seems like a bit of a special case, rather than a general representation of women in software engineering.

38. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.42155697{3}[source]
If we'd had software engineers in Sumeria, there'd be a bunch of tablets with the same complaints;)