What are your most common reasons for rejecting candidates after a job interview

[ehlnhl]

I reckon a number of you have conducted interviews for your organizations. As someone in the job market with a strong professional/educational background (Bachelors and Masters from top schools, internships at top companies and entry level to mid management roles at top companies in the Valley), I am curious as to what the most common reasons are for why you ultimately don't advance candidates to the next stage of the interview process.

I have no problems getting interviews but often don't get moved on to the second/final rounds. I know you must want some more information about my professional history to be able to give useful advice but I am unable to do so to protect my identity.

However, I would appreciate if you could share some of the most common reasons why you typically reject interviewees. Thanks.

[joeldidit]

I failed people that didn't pass the technical part of the interview.

Nowadays, people seem to care less about this technical aspect and more about whether they like you (but perhaps it has always been this way). They also seem to be stuck on very specific ways of doing things (to the point that their reasons for not hiring you may seem arbitrary and stupid), and anything that's even slightly off from this will result in failure. So you have to figure out how to have them like you, what they will perceive as you demonstrating competence, and the true reasons they are looking to hire for your position, then you have to do everything to fit that description.

It could be something out of your control and discriminatory, like you aren't the right age, gender, or race, but hopefully that's not the case.

Either way, I'm sure that no matter what they are looking for, they'll have trouble turning down a strong candidate, so figure out what it takes to become one of those, then enjoy. Also, you may be applying to the wrong companies.

[cja23]

1. Technical competence: the candidate is unable to satisfactorily answer even the most basic questions about 1 or more of the technologies/skills listed on their resume.

2. Candidate ambitions / Job mismatch: this goes both ways. I have rejected candidates that were clearly just looking for the paycheck and would likely do the minimum necessary to not get fired. I have also rejected candidates that wanted to do a lot more than the position required and would likely get bored and move on quickly. (For the latter, I always try to find another position that would be a better fit, even if it's outside my group, company, or even industry.)

3. Culture/Team mismatch: this is the last, and rarest reason to reject a candidate, and is only considered if they passed the two above hurdles. If the candidate's work/communication styles don't seem like they will mesh well with the existing team, this is sufficient to reject the candidate, although my team needs to feel pretty strongly about this incompatibility.

[gaelian]

I've been involved in a number of recruitment processes, on the employer side, recruiting technical people.

The main thing that I look for is a good balance of technical aptitude and cultural fit. I will generally prefer a person that can communicate well (in writing and in person) over a similarly technically skilled person that cannot.

Current skils are not usually as important as an ability and willingness to learn.

I don't like it when candidates are obviously just looking for a paycheck and really don't care what they'll be doing. These kind of punch in/punch out, 'take the money and run' people are a slowly debilitating cancer that it is super important to root out as early as possible.

So overall, I'd say for me it's attitude and communication skills more so than anything else.

[GABaracus]

I've hired a number of people. I'm usually not too picky about knowing a specific technology. I'm more interested in the soft skills, as well as proof they'd be able to pick things up quickly.

My reasons for NOT hiring someone:

- can't communicate well. I always ask them to draw something (like an ER diagram) and explain it.

- doesn't show examples of initiative

- doesn't seem passionate about career choice

- no examples of previous work

- (for recent CS graduates) can't explain something that should be part of standard CS study: eg NP completeness, what Big O notation means, etc.

[jjindev]

It was an interesting thing for me to do interviews, like the interviewee, and then hear the various objections of my peers. They were all over the map, more than any most common thing. All I can suggest is that you ask about the company's goals, adopt them, say you want to help ... basically insinuating yourself into the group as much as is polite in the setting.

(The thing I wanted was someone who wanted to help me get my project out.)

[ghostdiver]

Programmer who is looking at keyboard while typing code - not good enough.

[therobot24]

were they just straight up staring at it like they didn't know how to type? I make the occasional glance to realign myself (even though i still use my index fingers to find the bumps on the home row keys 'j' and 'f') in the consistency that someone would check their mirrors when driving, just a habit, but shouldn't affect the code i write

[shail]

what if he can still type faster than you?