Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Separate from whether the process was any good, your friend wasn't necessarily wrong not to make you an exception to it. Nepotism can be pretty rough on a team's morale.



Programmers are the least capable engineers but the most cocksure and entitled

Am an EE and I cannot stand the CS people at work. Oh you wrapped well known math in machine syntax sugar, none of which you invented, or defined? High 5, edgelord.


If I was another employee or applicant, I would be legitimately upset if someone didn't have to jump through the same hoops that I did simply because he knew the boss.


That's insane. My CEO is 60 years old and has built and sold 4 different companies before this. His network of former colleagues is deep. It would be childish for me to believe all of the potential people from his former working relationships should be beholden to the exact same homework assignments as someone who is a complete stranger.


Yeah, if I were someone working at a company having gone through the "normal" hiring process and then someone new joined my team and I found out they didn't have to go through it because they thought it was a waste of time and they were friends with the founder, that would feel pretty shitty.


it depends on their previous relationship. if they have worked together before then the test should be redundant. so why should i feel bothered that they didn't have to do a test?


If the founder is not really involved with the hiring team then you are essentially going over them without them having any idea how you work.

While I know what you're saying that the founder is vouching for your experience, its still going to cause friction, I think. Especially, again, to all the people that fought for the job.


sure, i am thinking of cases where the founder is still involved with hiring, and especially more so, where the founder is the lead developer and still coding.

i agree with you that once the company is large enough that the founder is no longer involved with hiring decisions then they should not just go over the hiring team.

more specifically, as in this article: https://www.cio.com/article/236189/5-reasons-ceos-should-be-...

i am talking about smaller companies that don't yet have senior management and HR teams




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: