Ask HN: is it unfair to refuse a job application simply based on bad writing?
I just refused a job applicant simply because they had bad writing in their resume ("I have advance knowledge ..."), although their skillset actually looked relevant. I've done it before, will likely do it again. Is that unfair?
49 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadIf nothing else, it's worth it to the employer and the employee to invest in a course audit at a local university to help improve those skills. You might be surprised to see if that helps improve retention and reduce the attrition of human capital. Especially if you include those types of programs to your organization to improve key skills.
Really, you think that's worth it?
That said, I think grammatical errors from an ESL speaker aren't the be-all end-all of good communication. It would really depend on what else I had to go on. Was there a cover letter? "Responsibilities" section of his/her resume?
Often extremely clear thinkers more than compensate for non-native language skills with incisive, compelling expression.
tl:dr Bad writing (communication) is just cause for putting a resume to the side. But one-off grammatical errors wouldn't be the only think I'd go on.
My resume gets tailored as often as once per application, and the occasional mistake does end up on there. I fix them when I find them, but I expect their presence should not impact the essence of the resume for a manager with a clear understanding of the requirements they're hiring for.
I read that as: if you're not prepared to get the details right when you're applying for the job why should I expect you'll get the details right when you're on the job?
Why stack the odds against yourself? Given two equivalent candidates, one who appears (by virtue of their application) to get the details right and the other doesn't, I'm going to pick the former.
But then again, I'm not a manager. :)
You shouldn't. Nobody gets everything right the first time (why do you think we have bug systems) and it would be a waste of company resources to reread every email for every grammatical error, especially when they don't actually cause the recipient to misunderstand the intended point.
The same goes for who/whom, its/it's, weather/whether, phrases such as "in a timely manor", etc.
Perfect grammar is like bug free programs: desirable in theory but too expensive and impractical in reality.
That said, "I have advance knowledge..." isn't necessarily incorrect, if they are talking about their prophetic talents and not their level of expertise. :)
You did the right thing.
I didn't mean the above in a bad way. I just mean that, if they communicate badly, they will often also misunderstand the requirements, or spend a lot of time coding without communicating, and that's not good for the project.
If they have no native-lang CV which you could understand, you will almost certainly have troubles communicating with them, which means no hire. If they didn't go through the trouble of getting a native English speaker to edit their CV, then how badly do they really want the job anyways?
Since you're trying to hire developers, you are undoubtedly aware that roughly 100% of the people who apply for your job are completely unqualified to program computers. Anything you can do to narrow that stack of 300 incompetents down to the 4 you can actually interview is worth doing.
So yes, ditch anybody who can't be bothered to proofread their resume. As other people have said, communication is an important skill for a developer. You have in your hands proof that they're not particularly good at it. Toss it and move on.
However, I'm willing to concede that I might be engaging in a bit of stereotyping. I'm not sure your actions can be legally or even logically justified, but I can say that I would probably do the same thing.
But yes, my statement does in fact come from my personal biases, exactly as I claimed in my comment.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Yes. Correct Answer: It's a poor question. Given the limited data you provided, anyone here passing judgement is basing it off insufficient information. Furthermore, the information provided (a typo) doesn't make the described situation ("bad writing"). Furthermore, you provide no information regarding the candidate.
Anyone giving you an answer is doing so without all the information. Expecting an answer after providing such limited information is unreasonable.
What does this have to do with my comment? I was remarking on the limited information provided, not whether it's unfair or not to dismiss a resume based on grammar. I'll just assume you inferred more from my comment than was stated.
> It's not insufficient information.
This is the only part of your comment discussion mine. So, let's see what information is missing.
So, someone whose primary language is, let's say, Italian, French second, and English third is required to have impeccable English skills? In Quebec, whose primary working language is French? These aren't exceptions. These are the rule outside the US. Knowing 2 languages is common. Knowing 3 is not at all unusual.
It's insufficient information precisely because it doesn't provide us any context.
Employer is where? Employee is from where? Employer is hiring for what position? From where? Employer has few/many candidates to choose from? Employer seeking highly specific skill set? English mistakes were real mistakes, and not merely a single typo?
Now, you can make a lot of assumptions and say that the employer was hiring someone from the USA, a native English speaker, for a job in the USA. You can also make the assumption that the employer isn't looking for a specific skill set, and that the mistakes were more than just typos (despite that being the only example offered). I can make a lot of assumptions. But that's all it is, an assumption.
> the answer is unquestionably NO, it is not unfair.
Such a hard and fast rule. Unquestionably? I think it would be grossly unfair to hire in a region where people aren't native English speakers for a programming position and demand better English than the employer.
I'm sure pretty much everyone here has worked with people, who don't know how to write English worth a damn. For example in my last job I worked with this Scandinavian dude, whose written English was atrocious. It was so bad we made jokes about it (with him, not at him). I had to repeatedly correct his writing.
But the dude was a brilliant technologist. Innovative, incredible work ethic and he just got s* done at an unbeliavable pace. The projects we were working on were much better off with him than without him.
Very capable, very smart and awesome to work with (most of the time), but can make some silly mistakes when writting in english... Specially on things that a spell checker wouldn't catch.
Not unfair, but you could miss a lot of good people by doing that.
I've seen many resumes that contain 1 or 2 small grammatical errors or typos. I don't get too hung up on those.
However, if the resume is poorly constructed overall, I usually won't choose that candidate for further consideration.
Every part of our jobs todays involves communications with others. I personally HATE chat-speak in email. "R u going 2 lunch 2day" drives me fucking bonkers, and I don't care if you're typing it on a phone where you have to tap 2 wires together to spell out the message in morse code. So, for me, I really don't want to interact with someone where every other communication is likely to make me want to strangle them. Similarly, even if they have poor English, I don't want people to require a decoder-ring to dissect their every message.
So, depending on the exact details of the resume, I would have probably done the same thing. The exceptions tend to be when you require a particular skill set that seems to be most predominant in someone that is not a native English speaker. EG: if I were hiring an expert on Russian social networks, I would not expect to find an ideal candidate that didn't also make some grammatical errors at times.
Communication gaps are like any other quality/time/scope/cost factor when managing people. If the lack of language skills aren't counterbalanced by brilliance in other areas, you'll end up with a net loss in investing in the employee.
Evaluating whether the poor language skills is a sign of being lazy, hasty, arrogant or simply from another native language group, you could miss a good deal of other high-value talents.
It doesn't take much to have another person review the thing for correctness. If you don't know anyone who can, spend the money to have a professional check it over.
If there is a huge stack of resumes and the chances of finding the right fit is good, then no harm to you.
But if (like everyone else) you are looking through a huge pile of chaff for the one right person who may not even be in the pile, then you are doing it wrong.
Nitpicking grammer, or paper color choice, or resume-writing skills in general, is probably not the critical skill your job requires (unless you are starting WriteYourResumeHere.co of course).