[bdw5204]

For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again.

I imagine somebody who's currently employed wants to know that the company is better than the place they're currently at before they'd accept an offer. But sometimes "better" can be a very low bar to clear because their current company might be awful.

In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. Somebody being unemployed or employed in a toxic environment doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them especially in an economy where companies continue to lay people off at random.

[lolinder]

> In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations.

It sucks for the employee, but the unfortunate truth is that filtering for someone who's already in a good situation is actually a really good filter for the employer. As you say, it doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with them, but being unable to find a job for an extended period of time—to the point where you'll look for anything and not try to filter workplaces at all—is correlated with undesirable traits. Meanwhile, being steadily employed in a chaotic market and asking questions that show you're not desperate and are evaluating me as a hiring manager are both correlated with positive traits.

Again—not that any specific candidate is problematic or good because of those situations, but you will tend towards better hires overall if you watch those cues.

The hiring process sucks and it sucks that this method of filtering works, but it does work.

[seadan83]

> The hiring process sucks and it sucks that this method of filtering works, but it does work.

How do you know this? (That this is not just sampling error, survivor bias, and/or confirmation bias)

I speculate that a good hire is almost random. Context matters as well. I worked with someone that was horrible, to later find out they were the other dev that I was going to work with later on a contract job. The different environment was night and day.

That being said, I do think the signal of a horrible hire can more often than not be detected during an interview. Otherwise, IMO, there is too much noise that it is close to random.

[photonthug]

> For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again.

Rather than seeing this phase of an interview as a chance to "conform even harder" and show smiling engagement in what is already an unfair / coercive farce, try thinking of this as an opportunity to exercise your curiosity.

I mean sure you don't really care, you just need a job. But it's possible to be curious about lots of things you don't really care about. Look at that bird, I wonder where it's flying from/to. Hey it's a car parked on the street, I wonder how many people had sex in the back. Look it's a manager at a company, I wonder how they handle product ideas in that company. Being curious is easy, usually it hurts nothing, and it's a kind of muscle that benefits from flexing. Besides, especially if you've got a long drive or a long interview.. well you're stuck with it, and what else are you going to do.

[defenestration]

Yes, your current situation does make a difference in what is important to you and which questions you have. And it also influences the balance at the interviewing table. I can imagine that it is frustrating to feel being evaluated against candidates who have the luxery of saying ‘no’ to a new job and can think critically if they want to work at the new place. Sometimes you have more freedom to say ‘no’ then you think. It can make a difference between night and day.