nosseo

Hey! I'm the article author, and I didn't write about what the Media Lab was thinking to give them "cover". As I put it in the article, the Media Lab's actions were so horrific that it brings into question the whole philosophy behind anonymous donations. So why take a close look at their justifications? Well, a couple reasons. Firstly, I think it's interesting when smart people argue themselves into incredibly bad decisions that anyone could've warned them against. It's an easy failure mode to fall into, and looking in gruesome detail at some cases where other people fell into it has taught me a lot about how these failures happen.

Secondly, I think that condemnation hits harder when it's the result of sincere engagement with someone's justifications. Yep, I listened to you when you said why you did it. And you were wrong. It's not always worth taking that step, of course, but in a big case like this, I think it is.

So the thing is, I think arrogance is typically reflected in actual deficiencies in interview performance. If it isn't - if it's just a vibe that the interviewer got with no concrete implications for how they work with others, solve problems, or communicate - then I worry taking it into account is introducing bias. If I can't think of a concrete implication that the arrogance had, then I don't think I want to take it into account. (You almost always can identify concrete effects, though.)

Even a year later, you should definitely have had the chance to try again if you'd like. I can reactivate your account; email me at [email protected]

We don't have the project track anymore, because most candidates weren't willing to do it and it wasn't successfully predicting hires. (There's actually a blog post about this upcoming). We have generalist, front-end and mobile tracks but none of them involve take-home work anymore.No matter which one you do, the feedback will be a lot more thorough than we were able to be two years ago.

For arrogant, I'd try to make the feedback as concrete and specific as possible - "sometimes you gave confidently wrong answers. If you're guessing, it's better to tell your interviewer that. Interviewers typically won't hold it against you if you guess and guess rightly, but if you don't acknowledge you're guessing and get things wrong, it raises questions about whether you know what you don't know." or "sometimes it's great to ignore the spec because you have something better in mind, but on an interview it's typically better to demonstrate your creativity and knowledge while still building to the spec - it makes it easier for us to evaluate you" or "when talking about your last company, you said some things that came across as disdainful about your coworkers. It'd be better to highlight your achievements."

All of those are ways being arrogant can manifest, but they're much more actionable than 'you were arrogant' and unsurprisingly get received a lot better.

I wouldn't comment on smell - yes, that's valuable feedback a candidate really ought to hear from someone, but the risk of really angering them is too high for me to feel comfortable with it.

Shoot me an email ([email protected]) and I'll reset your account.

All the ways I discussed in the article - more nuanced, more thorough, more detailed, more focused on constructive advice you can take to your next interview. Plus, we've just improved our process in general so you aren't tested on skills you don't need. It's easier to give constructive feedback about an interview process you have a lot of confidence in, and much of the work we've put in as a company over the last few years has been designing an interview we think really works.

To be clear, we don't ask candidates 'what is a relational database', and I'm totally in agreement that that's a weak interview question.

I don't conduct the interviews, you're right that that'd be impossible. I take the notes from our interviewers and turn them into feedback emails.

Yeah, another disadvantage of feedback is that some people really resent suggestions on how to improve - they can come across as condescending. I definitely would rather get feedback to someone who wants it even if this annoys someone who didn't, but I think lots of companies are making the opposite tradeoff - and that's part of why feedback is so rare in the industry.

I did a degree in symbolic systems (CS + philosophy + linguistics; I have some CS background but less than I'd have gotten from a CS degree), I did one software internship, and Triplebyte was my first job when I graduated. I'm sure every candidate I send feedback is a stronger engineer than I am, but I do have some technical background. Most engineers want to write code all day, not emails, but I think a technical background does help us do our jobs.

That sounds like a feedback email from a couple years ago - am I right about that? We've definitely gotten better at this over time.