Interviews can cost a company anywhere from $10k - $25k per candidate. This amount includes recruiter/coordinator time, interviewer time, etc. Source: https://haseebq.com/my-ten-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer/ Candidates put in a lot of time and effort to interview as well. How much should they be compensated? E.g. if you spend 50 hours preparing for an interview. 50 hrs x $100/hr = $5k (And this is being very conservative) #tech #amazon #aws #google #facebook #uber #salesforce #netflix #apple #goldman #jpmorgan #citadel
Lol this post would have gotten more traction last year
For all those thinking this is a ridiculous thing to ask, know that the eight hours of interviews in one final on site in addition to several additional hours in prior interviews is NOT NORMAL in other professions. When I told my family and friends what I had to go through applying as a SWE, they were all in shock. Many would ask if I was paid for the amount of time I spent interviewing. When I told them no, they were further disgusted. Other professions have standardized exams so you only have to prove your technical knowledge and capabilities ONCE. We need something like this. Soon. It’s sad because the whole point of a college degree was to prove your capability. Clearly that means almost nothing now.
Effort to reward ratio is greater in this field than others. We did 4 years of school and 10 hours of leetcode to get paid 250k. Name any other high paying profession with such a low bar to entry
I’m pretty sure other high paying jobs (comparable to tech) have similar interviews.
We all like to think we’re special but we’re not. If a company is hiring for a single role and evaluates only 20 people for that single role, anything more than 3-400 dollars per candidate becomes very costly. Now imagine an org hiring for 10 roles concurrently. Here’s the economics of it: the greater the cost for the company to run an interview process, the less incentive to bring on as many candidates as they’d otherwise be able. In other words, you’d probably never get a chance to interview in the first place because the initial screening or application process will evolve to a point so very few make it to a first round.
Please read my original post again. Interviewing a candidate will cost a company north of $10k (per candidate). For this reason, paying the candidate $1k or $2k shouldn’t change things much.
I would just be a professional interviewee then. Why bother getting a job.
Interviewing shouldn’t become a career because recruiters will do their due diligence and not setup interviews with unsuitable candidates who will potentially take advantage of paid interviews. If you’re putting in 50 - 100hrs of preparation time and effort per interview, there should be adequate compensation regardless of whether you get an offer.
there is no way you can do due diligence, a national database of some sort? I'm pretty sure that's going to be illegal. Maybe we can share technical interview results across companies if you want? That could save time.
Airtable paid me $500 for a take home
Actually, I'm surprised places like Citadel don't do this. There are certain candidates we are dying to get into the door so we can at least have them meet the team and do a face to face sell conversation. I suspect if it were acceptable to offer an incentive (kind of like a timeshare!) to come in and listen to our pitch, HR would be all over it. They already do everything they can other than offering straight up cash -- first class airfare, 5-star hotels, etc.
Citadel gives you money to spend during the visit, so there is a cash component. I think, at some point, it becomes a tax problem as well. When Citadel invited me to the office, I do think they spent as much money as they were legally allowed.
That sounds right. I bet if you get more than few hundred bucks, they have to file a 1099-MISC on your behalf and then you have to pay taxes on it.
How about 0? You aren’t creating value for the company unless hired
You are! 1. contributing to the interview/recruitment process 2. there’s potential value - in case you get hired
How does this make sense? Demand outstrips supply, hence the long complicated interview process. If there were 10 jobs available and only 5 people applying, you bet the interviews would be pretty straight forward and the companies would be competing for the talent. Paying people to interview would make sense here. But that’s not the case. Companies with supposed prestige/high TC/etc have scores of people lining up and willing to put up with this.
India
10h
505
'Hindutva': The Radical Hindu Ideology That Seeks to 'Push Christianity Out of India’
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1202
Last good year to visit europe
World Conflicts
7h
337
Is "From the River to the Sea" So Wrong?
Tech Industry
6h
392
How much should your net worth be by age 30?
Tech Industry
Yesterday
3878
What happens when most of your team is Indian?
Around 1k? What are you on. Your figures are also way off. For a second round rejection, I’d say 50 bucks. For a third/final round rejection, no more than $150. Whatever prep you’re putting in for one company likely benefits you for other interviews so to say each interview process per company takes 10+ hours of prep is unrealistic
$50? What do you think this is, jury duty? Interviews are a huge time suck.
I know you think you’re special, but you’re not. If a company is hiring for a single role and evaluates only 20 people for that single role, anything more than 3-400 dollars per candidate becomes very costly. Now imagine an org hiring for 10 roles concurrently. Here’s the economics of it: the greater the cost for the company to run an interview process, the less incentive to bring on as many candidates as they’d otherwise be able. In other words, you’d probably never get a chance to interview in the first place because the initial screening or application process will evolve to a point where even less people make it to a first round.