←back to thread

Ask HN: How did Soham Parekh get so many jobs?

290 points jshchnz | 3 comments | 02 Jul 25 20:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.603s | source

Soham Parekh is all the rage on Twitter right now with a bunch of startups coming out of the woodwork saying they either had currently employed him or had in the past.

Serious question: why aren't so many startups hiring processes filtering out a candidate who is scamming/working multiple jobs?

Show context
gargoyle9123 ◴[02 Jul 25 23:50 UTC] No.44450088[source]▶
We hired Soham.

I can tell you it's because he's actually a very skilled engineer. He will blow the interviews completely out of the water. Easily top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates -- other startups will tell you this as well.

The problem is when the job (or work-trial in our case) actually starts, it's just excuses upon excuses as to why he's missing a meeting, or why the PR was pushed late. The excuses become more ridiculous and unbelievable, up until it's obvious he's just lying.

Other people in this thread are incorrect, it's not a dev. shop. I worked with Soham in-person for 2 days during the work-trial process, he's good. He left half of each day with some excuse about meeting a lawyer.

replies(20): >>44451943 #>>44452130 #>>44452579 #>>44454933 #>>44455825 #>>44464702 #>>44466618 #>>44466761 #>>44467187 #>>44467327 #>>44467349 #>>44468081 #>>44469987 #>>44470878 #>>44472784 #>>44475315 #>>44476353 #>>44483740 #>>44490801 #>>44500486 #
1. sugarpimpdorsey ◴[05 Jul 25 20:31 UTC] No.44475315[source]▶
> I can tell you it's because he's actually a very skilled engineer.

> Easily top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates -- other startups will tell you this as well.

People who regularly don't show up for work are by definition not "top 1% or top 0.1% of candidates" - in fact quite the opposite.

That'll get you fired from PetSmart, let alone some bullshit $250k/yr software job.

I think startups' freewheeling management and hiring practices need examined because this would be caught by the most basic of background or reference checks at any traditional business.

Can't wait for Paul Graham's next essay on "How to Not Hire People Who Smoke Crack In the Toilets Instead of Showing Up for Work" for more informative life lessons.

replies(2): >>44479634 #>>44492374 #
2. swores ◴[06 Jul 25 11:03 UTC] No.44479634[source]▶
You're replying to a quote about where their skill falls compared to others, and then saying it's wrong based on their contribution to the company. You're not wrong that it means they aren't top 1% in terms of value as an employee, but it's a separate topic to the quote you're replying to.
3. pluto_modadic ◴[07 Jul 25 17:03 UTC] No.44492374[source]▶
A disinterested Richard Feynman is a better physicist than a very interested highschooler. Skill and value extraction are not the same thing.