I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar • Hacker News Board

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#101

Post by AkThhhpppt » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 1:56 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #58

mkup wrote: post #22

Now, Truss and I disagree on what it means to have "zero tolerance." She thinks that people who mix up their itses "deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot and buried in an unmarked grave," while I just think they deserve to be passed over for a job — even if they are otherwise qualified for the position. Putting comma inside quotation like the above could make grammar nazis happy, but when your newl…

I've never understood this putting punctuation that isn't part of a quote inside the quotation marks. It seems both wrong in terms of verity and in terms of logically constructing prose. Can someone explain a rationale for this proclivity ?

Because that's How It's Done. Programmers are almost the only people who routinely break it - because we're used to quoted strings being atomic units.

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#102

Post by madink » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

It's funny , I am a native french speaker married to an australian so my english start to be quit all right. What is funny is that "there, their, they're" or "its, it's" mistakes are painful to me, but at the same time I am unable to write 3 sentences in french whith no mistake. I probably made a few mistake in this post but remember english is EASY (at least from a european background). I am ashamed of my own french writting , I tried (not to hard) to fix it with very limited success , when I what kind of easy stupid common English mistake I'm really torn between empathy and disgusts.

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#103

Post by gawker » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

klawed wrote: post #62

Sunlis wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so bad about a grammar test? Any competent person (excluding extenuating circumstances: dyslexia, etc.) should be able to pass a simple grammar test. It's not some hardship that you have to study for or anything.

What's so bad about it is that unfounded assumptions are being drawn from the performance of said test. Any competent person should be able to make a bed neatly and quickly. Would you apply for a (non-hospitalitly-related)job that required you to demonstrate your bed-making abilities?

Watching how someone makes their bed shows their behaviour towards paying attention to detail. Even if they don't know how to do it, if someone chooses not to do or chooses to give up, it's clear sign that the person will probably not do something out of their domain.

If you're in a startup, you wear many hats. You do what it takes to succeed. If you have no clue how to do sales, find a way.

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#104

Post by raganwald » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

ianterrell wrote: post #82

raganwald wrote: post #76

Applicants who don't think writing is important are likely to think lots of other (important) things also aren't important, "Citation needed." Or to put it another way, what is the difference between this statement and: Applicants who don't think wearing a tie and polished brogues to an interview are important are likely to think lots of other (important) things also aren't important

The difference between those two cases is well explained by the internal logic of the article (which I find spot on): > In blog posts, on Facebook statuses, in e-mails, and on company websites, your words are all you have. They are a projection of you in your physical absence.

I agree with the statement you quoted I don’t agree with the statement I quoted. I have no difficulty agreeing with him on one point but taking him to task on another.

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#105

Post by tokenadult » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 1:58 PM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #81

irahul wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saving the google search for people who don't know what an oxford comma is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma "Portugal, Spain, and France" (Oxford comma) "Portugal, Spain and France" (Not Oxford comma)

Even oxford discourages its use in public writing. http://www.ox.ac.uk/public_affairs/services_and_resources/st...

I think that's because the term "Oxford comma" is somewhat of a misnomer. The comma before "and" actually seems to be more preferred in the United States that in Britain.

"Opinions vary among writers and editors on the usage or avoidance of the serial comma. In American English, the serial comma is standard usage in non-journalistic writing that follows the Chicago Manual of Style. . . . It is used less often in British English,[5][6] where it is standard usage to leave it out, with some notable exceptions such as Fowler's Modern English Usage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#106

Post by klawed » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:00 PM UTC

lotyrin wrote: post #95

klawed wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so bad about it is that unfounded assumptions are being drawn from the performance of said test. Any competent person should be able to make a bed neatly and quickly. Would you apply for a (non-hospitalitly-related)job that required you to demonstrate your bed-making abilities?

This seems to imply that programmers never write natural language or that their ability to do so is unimportant. If you're writing more code than natural language (documentation, discussion of specs, interaction with the team, etc) something is extremely wrong.

The idea of using grammar as a litmus test for all new hires is akin to saying that nothing is more important than natural language grammar. That could not be further from the truth. I've read plenty of extremely thoughtful, info-dense specs in the open-source community that had typos and grammar errors. I've seen countless emails from colleagues that were clearly quickly written and thus contained errors. The essential ideas were none-the-less transmitted. My mind is able to auto-correct when needed. Perhaps if the rules of english grammar were based on logic and reason rather than the memorization of arbitrary, capricious rules I'd be willing to attach more wait to the grammar skills of non-professional writers.

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#107

Post by mej10 » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:01 PM UTC

Caring about grammar is just a way to signal that you are of higher class than people that use poor grammar.

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#108

Post by alayne » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:02 PM UTC

allwein wrote: post #54

benihana wrote: post #40

Oh please. I can understand not hiring someone who communicates poorly. That makes sense. But grammar is just a set of arbitrary rules that some person or group of people decided were correct. It's like a secret handshake that lets people know you're part of some smart boys club (by and large it seems like men are the only ones who enjoy bitching about grammar). To me, it says, "I went to a good school system and was…

In general job X, that may be true. But when you're being hired at a company where your job is going to explicitly be writing clear technical prose, I don't think it's unimportant at all.

"Still, we give our grammar test to everybody, including our salespeople, our operations staff, and our programmers."

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#109

Post by gawker » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:03 PM UTC

samwillis wrote: post #78

> Extenuating circumstances aside (dyslexia, .... I'm Dyslexic and if I was applying for a job (obviously not to be a writer) and was told that there was a grammar test but I didn't need to take it, or it didn't count, because I am Dyslexic I would probably walk away. How do I know that they aren't going to hold my Dyslexia against me just as they would someone who has bad grammar? What's the difference between bad g…

We will probably never know if anyone is really holding something against us. Sure, someone could tell you but others might choose not to disclose that information. We just go with trust and gut :)

Re: I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

#110

Post by FourthProtocol » Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 2:03 PM UTC

Even if this ensures a cultural fit I'd not be so binary about grammar.

Just a few months ago I helped a government department find an architect. The brief boiled down to someone who can code, but can also liaise with department directors and its vendors, up to CxO level. Clearly grammar and communication ability in general was quite a key requirement.

The recruitment process involved submitting a resume and answering standard questions in an application form. There was a deadline beyond which applications wouldn't be considered.

Of all the resumes I reviewed one stood out. For two reasons.

First, his technical ability, if the resume was to be believed, was impressive. More than a government department could hope for.

The second reason was that his answers in the application form tanked. The very first paragraph answer simply stopped in mid-sentence. There were a number of spelling mistakes in the remaining answers.

I really liked the resume, so I invited him in for an interview anyway. Turns out he is in fact as good as his resume suggested.

The reason for the sloppy application form was that he only spotted the job advertisement at 4pm the day of the application deadline, and had to hustle to get his application in before 5pm. He'd heard about the project and was desperate to be a part of it.

He's been one of the best hires I've made. Being fanatically dogmatic about anything in life closes doors you'd never have imagined were even there. I hope I never become that myopic.