The Lesson to Unlearn • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#411

Post by johnm » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:25 PM UTC

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #386

johnm wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, for all of the focus on the interview processes to "prevent" false positive hires, those same companies suck as actually getting rid of the bad hires. Some is rational risk aversion to lawsuits and the like but that clearly bs when you see just how fast people that aren't liked by someone high enough up the food chain are shown the door. The effect on morale and real productivity of getting rid of the toxic and…

The first job I had there was a probationary period - it was good and bad. It was good because you knew everybody there was extremely talented and you could rely on your coworkers. There was a bit of an understanding about the cut throat nature of the place though, and obviously that's not for everyone. But at the end of the day, when it came time to just get shit done, there was never any problem. I can't name that…

Note that I'm also not talking about companies doing forced rankings and nuking the bottom X%. That's a different form of systemic toxicity and, alas, plays into the technical industry's huge problem with toxic "geek machismo" culture.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#412

Post by cookie_monsta » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #333

knzhou wrote: post #264

As somebody who has designed some of the tests Paul Graham is complaining about, it really is hard from the other side! For example, it's long been known in the physics education research community that students come away from introductory courses with very little physical understanding, even if they can do the plug and chug problems on typical tests just fine. Students can all recite Newton's third law, but immediat…

Ever look at Keller Plan stuff? I did Physics 2 that way and really liked it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keller_Plan (also, wow, I just got that Principle Skinner in the Simpsons doesn't accidentally have that name. Face to palm.)

You may be interested in Simon Singh's The Simpsons and their Mathematical Secrets which details the show's long tradition of hiring math geeks as writers and the plethora of math-based in-jokes that has resulted.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#413

Post by pmichaud » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

choppaface wrote: post #366

“But you can't blame teachers if their tests are hackable. Their job is to teach, not to create unhackable tests. The real problem is grades, or more precisely, that grades have been overloaded.” Two important things here: * Grade inflation makes for happier students and counterbalances the value of test hacking. Today there are very few schools that don’t do grade inflation. Without considering grade inflation, much…

The suggested alternative I got from the essay was "try to cause a real, specific outcome in the world. If the action you took caused the outcome, you passed the test."

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#414

Post by dunkelheit » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

In my opinion the most insidious feature of the education system is not tests. After all a proper hard STEM program is not that easily hackable - the easiest way to complete it may be to actually study!

What is worse (and although it is related to grades it is not the same), you only do what you are told to do. Your goals are set for you - read this chapter, solve this problem, answer this question. Thus your inherent creativity is slowly but surely gets sapped away until you become a "professional" - someone who solves problems of others without questioning them much.

Not sure what to do with this though - every way to overcome this problem seems inherently not scalable. Also not sure if this is really a bad thing - a society where everybody suddenly becomes more creative can suddenly collapse because of all the excess creativity!

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#415

Post by hogFeast » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #319

burlesona wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a hiring manager at a big company, I can tell you this is just as frustrating for me as it is for candidates. I hate “leet code” and frankly find algorithmic interviews to be very low signal compared to more practical, open-ended, domain-specific problems. I will say though, the problem is one of “standardization” across an organization where it’s too big for everyone to fit in a room. Suppose you give each tea…

it's a really simple problem honestly. Make a standardized test, but don't put an hour time limit on it. If you gave the exact same algorithm test with a 24-hour time limit vs. a 1-hour time limit then had a 1-hour interview explaining the solution to the problem you would be testing for something closer to programming acumen than memorization. I have no idea why tech companies find this so challenging.

The key bit is getting people to explain the answer, not the answer itself.

I have had interviews where the company has done that. I would rate all of those interviews to be very high quality. No nonsense trick/leading questions. Just simple: can this person actually program? What does he understand? What doesn't he understand? I felt like it was obvious what I could and could not do...there was nowhere to hide.

Btw, in terms of investment, this seemed far cheaper for the companies too. What is cheaper? Arranging an hour-long interview where you go through a simple problem that is focused and will clearly identify knowledge. Against an hour-long interview where you probe someone randomly about their life and projects that the interviewer has no idea about (funnily enough, no matter how good you are communicating ideas...interviewers almost always get it wrong).

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#416

Post by fghtr » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

ken wrote: post #90

I'm glad he made the leap from school tests to funding tests, as it seemed to be a thinly veiled analogy from the start. I'm disappointed, though, that he didn't take the final step and admit that money itself is also a poor, hackable test. Funding, growth, usage -- these are all still one level removed from something worthwhile or beneficial. Cigarettes have amazing usage numbers even in 2019. I'm waiting for the en…

Perhaps, Purism (Social Purpose Corporation) could fit: https://www.hostingadvice.com/blog/purism-respects-user-righ...

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#417

Post by gnicholas » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

I usually find PG’s writing to be very illuminating, but I largely disagree with this piece.

I think the reason founders want introductions to influential people is not because they think that this is what you need to be successful. It’s because they have seen many cases where influential people talked up startups that seemed to be pretty mediocre, and it helped them succeed. And they think “well my startup is at least as good as those other ones, so publicity by famous people will accelerate our path to success.”

They’ve seen press coverage of lousy startups propel them into fundraising successes and growing revenues, even if they never became profitable. And they think “I’d succeed faster if my legit startup had that kind of exposure.”

It’s not that they think these things are a substitute for having a good product. They think (correctly) that having these things will accelerate their growth and somewhat lower the bar to success (particularly if there are network effects involved).

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#418

Post by dkersten » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:31 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #404

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a hiring manager at a big company for years. We never did coding tests, and I like to think that I made good choices every time. I kept a high-functioning team together, under fairly humble pay, and stressful, sometimes demoralizing, conditions, for decades. I'm mediocre, at best, at these tests. I don't come from a traditional CS background (started as an EE). I tend to take unusual, hybrid approaches to solvi…

> I was a hiring manager at a big company for years. We never did coding tests, and I like to think that I made good choices every time. I don't doubt that you did, but I doubt that everyone at your company places the same effort as you do. At my current company, 90% of interviewers half ass their interviews. They don't have much incentive to care, so you want interview questions with consistent standards and produce…

> 90% of interviewers half ass their interviews

Good interviewing is difficult, it may not necessarily be because they don’t care.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#419

Post by johnm » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #386

johnm wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, for all of the focus on the interview processes to "prevent" false positive hires, those same companies suck as actually getting rid of the bad hires. Some is rational risk aversion to lawsuits and the like but that clearly bs when you see just how fast people that aren't liked by someone high enough up the food chain are shown the door. The effect on morale and real productivity of getting rid of the toxic and…

The first job I had there was a probationary period - it was good and bad. It was good because you knew everybody there was extremely talented and you could rely on your coworkers. There was a bit of an understanding about the cut throat nature of the place though, and obviously that's not for everyone. But at the end of the day, when it came time to just get shit done, there was never any problem. I can't name that…

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the toxic (and incompetent) manager problem is fundamentally a leadership problem. The single biggest responsibility of the founders is the culture of the organization -- everything stems from that, one way or another.

Leadership, from the top down, is absolutely responsible for the mentoring, training, and environment created by the management. None of the systemic problems with & induced by management is new. It comes down to: does leadership actually care enough to do anything about it? Companies institute all sorts of formal stuff like internal surveys and NPS scoring and so forth but it always comes down to trust & communication and then follow through. And the follow through is the clearest way to create trust. All of the things that even well intentioned leaders spout, if not followed through, quickly erodes and ultimately destroys trust. So, just like with kids, don't make promises you won't keep.

Re: The Lesson to Unlearn

#420

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

taeric wrote: post #340

GCA10 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add air resistance into the mix, and denser materials do fall faster. Coins vs. napkins. Plums vs. crumpled balls of paper I'd actually take the lesson the other way. It's hilariously tough for model-makers to acknowledge real-world noise that prevents their theoretically precise models from delivering reliable results.

I covered that with terminal velocity. And it isn't just falling, but going down a hill. Folks commonly think heavier bikes will go faster down a hill. That isn't how that works.

[deleted]