I have interviewed people for a long long time, and unless they were egregiously bad (obviously cheating, or failed every part of the technical) I have always written them a paragraph of feedback.
Every single candidate. It’s not hard, takes 5 minutes
How does it create liability to say “I’d like to have more advanced Python skills, specifically the using object oriented code to structure a solution to the problem”
I feel like society has gone insane. Don’t do anything, it might upset someone, or you could step on someone’s emotional support ant, and we’ll get sued!
It doesn’t, but someone could write something that did. Like referring to an incorrect answer that the candidate then wants to prove in court was actually correct, and so they were unfairly rejected.
So either you screen every piece feedback by the legal team, which would be very expensive, or you just don’t give feedback as a rule.
I’m not saying this makes sense - it doesn’t - just saying that’s the rationale that leads to it.
if you want feedback, don’t bother doing any of the coding challenges/tests and they’ll send you a “we’re disappointed” email. lol
I have interviewed people for a long long time, and unless they were egregiously bad (obviously cheating, or failed every part of the technical) I have always written them a paragraph of feedback.
Every single candidate. It’s not hard, takes 5 minutes
you’re a unicorn! lol
It’s just basic respect.
Sometimes hiring managers aren’t allowed to provide any feedback because it can create legal liability.
But usually they just don’t want to.
How does it create liability to say “I’d like to have more advanced Python skills, specifically the using object oriented code to structure a solution to the problem”
I feel like society has gone insane. Don’t do anything, it might upset someone, or you could step on someone’s emotional support ant, and we’ll get sued!
It doesn’t, but someone could write something that did. Like referring to an incorrect answer that the candidate then wants to prove in court was actually correct, and so they were unfairly rejected.
So either you screen every piece feedback by the legal team, which would be very expensive, or you just don’t give feedback as a rule.
I’m not saying this makes sense - it doesn’t - just saying that’s the rationale that leads to it.