271–280 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have had a better way for decades, its banned. What do you think all these algorithm questions are supposed to do?
What is the better way that is banned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to present data that shows flaws with today's interviewing. It's a lot harder to present a better way of predicting candidate performance in the workplace, along with substantial data that indicates it's better than today's methods. Corporations would love more effective ways to determine effectiveness/performance before hiring. Interviewing is terrible, but that doesn't mean there is a better option.
Nonsense. First step is to acknowledge that interviewing doesn't work very well. You can't keep deluding yourself because you haven't found a better way. Accept reality. This is one of the biggest problems I see with business guys today. They want absolute certainty in a world which can't offer it. Start accepting that there is a lot of stuff we don't know and can't know at the moment and we simply have to work towar…
Yes yes..of course I know this could be gamed as well, but no matter...you can't really argue that this wouldn't be magnitudes better then the typical current/broken interview process.
I find it quite problematic that researchers get to talk about their own research and present it as facts without anyone taking a critical look. Over time I’ve become more skeptical about this kind of psychology research (as more studies fail to replicate) and, as is often the case, here the sample size is quite small (76 students, split across 3 groups), predicting something relatively noisy as GPA. It is unclear to…
Maybe, but doesn't a claim like "a 30-minute conversation with someone is a strong indicator of job performance" deserve scrutiny of its own?
But what I find far more important in the interview process is involving current team members in the process of selecting new coworkers. It's one way of getting teams to be bought into a feeling of shared purpose and is the first step in establishing a working relationship. If you don't give at least some of the current team a role in the hiring process, teams will feel imposed upon by those hiring and won't be as understanding about flaws in those added to the teams.
Focusing on selecting the "right candidate" is really myopic in a situation where there are likely many right candidates. We should, instead, be focusing on not selecting a wrong candidate and fostering the right team dynamic. We already know that strong teams significantly outperform strong individual performers who don't cooperate. Yet hiring still seems focused on optimizing for strong individual contributions. And I've yet to see a study that looks at the flaws of the interview process in building ineffective teams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the parent means, we don't take as objective fact a politician's claims that their policies worked; we interpret it as self-aggrandizement and scrutinize the claims quite heavily. And that—given the push to publish and the fact that null-result studies aren't very publishable—we should likely do the same for research conclusions.
I understood, but I think recent evidence in the US suggests that a great many people absolutely take as objective fact what a politician claims. A similar number probably absolutely believe the opposite with little or no evidence. Net, I think citing politicians was perhaps not the best analogy.
Why is that not the case here, where a professor is allowed to sell his own work? It is as if Obama is the NYT reporter for Obamacare.
That people believe politicians blindly is a topic for another day :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been a long time since I interviewed an ops person. But when I did something like this, I'd ask, "Name as many arguments to ps as you can." (Or ls, also good.) I didn't really care about which flags they knew. What I was looking for was a pattern. Anybody good knows some arguments cold. Often they know them so well as part of a phrase that they have to think about what the individual ones mean, which tells me th…
I feel pretty comfortable with my Unix abilities, and have held ops roles in the past, and I would have bombed this question.
I don't score it by how many option-letters people know. I score it by how well they demonstrate familiarity with a basic ops activity, which is finding out what's running.
Even if somebody said they never used ps, or like below, only use one incantation, that isn't a problem, because my follow-up there would be to ask how you'd find out what's using all the RAM or what's using a lot of CPU.
Maybe they're just used to using different tools, in which case I can ask for details for those tools. (And then check manually later to make sure I'm not getting snowed.) But if they've done a bunch of ops stuff, they'll demonstrate the sort of know-from-doing level of familiarity with something.
In theory I could just ask the broader question to start. But some people are good talkers, and I'm looking for evidence that people are good doers. All that said, I've shifted mainly to more experiential interview processes, as actually doing is the best way to see if somebody's a doer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. First step is to acknowledge that interviewing doesn't work very well. You can't keep deluding yourself because you haven't found a better way. Accept reality. This is one of the biggest problems I see with business guys today. They want absolute certainty in a world which can't offer it. Start accepting that there is a lot of stuff we don't know and can't know at the moment and we simply have to work towar…
I still don't understand why employers can't simply set up a two week "trial contract" where as promising candidates simply work for two weeks so everyone can actually see and judge, with real world empirical data, how well the person does in the environment at the actual job. Yes yes..of course I know this could be gamed as well, but no matter...you can't really argue that this wouldn't be magnitudes better then the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been a long time since I interviewed an ops person. But when I did something like this, I'd ask, "Name as many arguments to ps as you can." (Or ls, also good.) I didn't really care about which flags they knew. What I was looking for was a pattern. Anybody good knows some arguments cold. Often they know them so well as part of a phrase that they have to think about what the individual ones mean, which tells me th…
They'll usually look a bit uncomfortable, because they are the sort of person who likes knowing things. So the process is, in fact, designed to make people feel uncomfortable, for a little bit (or at least you're definitely aware that this is a frequently occurring side effect). Does that not suggest to you that there may be a negative tradeoff at play here? (To wit: yes you do manage do efficiently extract a few bit…
But no, I don't think they walk away feeling interrogated. My style is pretty conversational, and when people don't have all the answers, I definitely work to make them feel comfortable with that. E.g., for this question I'd close with something like, "Of course nobody knows all the arguments to ls. I sure don't. So you did fine."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been a long time since I interviewed an ops person. But when I did something like this, I'd ask, "Name as many arguments to ps as you can." (Or ls, also good.) I didn't really care about which flags they knew. What I was looking for was a pattern. Anybody good knows some arguments cold. Often they know them so well as part of a phrase that they have to think about what the individual ones mean, which tells me th…
dangerous because they prefix things with sudo?
I am a recruiter. Recently, I started working with a new employer. We could not get anyone through their interview process. Eventually I asked the HR person to clarify precisely what was being asked in these interviews. She said that, essentially, the interviews were ad-hoc, with the interviewer just coming up with whatever questions they thought relevant based on the resume - often asking the candidate to go through…
This creates a system that can be gamed though. The interviewees can pass this information back to the recruiter and the recruiter can couch future interviewees. The recruiter has a vested interest in placing people.
It would be better to have a thousand questions that are randomly selected.