We all know interviewing is a lot of hard work and at the end of the day there’s a huge luck factor as well. A better solution: Interviewing is a repetitive work, especially for the candidate. Instead of interviewing for every single company answering similar questions across companies, isn’t it better for the candidate to be interviewed by a set of 15-20 interviewers and sharing the videos/ feedback etc with different companies ?
Liability issues Pretty sure that would break a lot of laws
What kind of laws ? Can you elaborate ?
That’s not even a solution, forget better.
It’s a seed idea. I will be developing from that.
So you're proposing if you bomb one interview you're bombing all other 20 prospective interviews?
That’s the thing I want to break. Just because the candidate has marginally underperformed in one of the rounds, shouldn’t lead to full rejection. Read my previous reply.
Or have something similar to professional licensing exams which prove candidacy and companies can just do culture match interview.
Yes exactly. I am thinking on similar lines!
Licensing exams are stupid and only help to evaluate one trick monkeys for some technology
So that if you fucked up one interview, you r chances of getting in another companies are fucked up royally
If this was a poll, that said “Is this better” it’d be overwhelmingly “NO”
I disagree. I want to have discussion.
Fair way could be: 1. Apply to 20 companies 2. Do 20 interviews scored 1..100 3. Scores are used as replacement to tech interviews 4. Each position can weigh different interview problem type by different coeficient But make sure you can try only once after applying. And your interviews before applying don't count. This is needed to protect companies from scams that will keep retrying until they get perfect score and try to reuse that score forever.
It should be company agnostic actually. I wouldn’t prefer applying to company, interview and then generating a score. Majority of the interview process should happen before the company receives the application. Along with the application, the candidate should provide the score as well.
If someone gives a negative feedback abt you to everyone, how would you feel. What if you decide to sure them because of them giving negative feedback
It’s not a traditional interview where you give a thumbs up or down after every interview. 15-20 interviews can be given over a span of 2-3 months. Initially if the candidate is rusty, his performance may not be up to the mark. So, over a period of time, after few interviews his performance will become better and probably at the end of 15-20 interviews the candidate will be knocking the interviews out of the park. Companies can see the progress the candidate has made over 2-3 months and then bring them on-site and just do 1/2 interviews and reduce the time taken for the entire hiring process! I am thinking of ways to evaluate the candidate after every five interviews. Something like a score etc