Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

blogs.hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 334 posts

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

#181

Post by sampo »

einhverfr wrote: post #171
sampo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-native speaker of English, I have been wondering how much signal it would be appropriate for me to infer from the kind of sloppy grammar that is typical only for native speakers of English? [1] I learned English at school as a second language, and we would always start with the written form, and then learn how to pronounce. So my "hash table" is primarily organized based on the written form, and it would be…

This is interesting. On the other hand, I would like to know since Finnish as a language fascinates me: How common are noun-case errors among people who have a high school education? I mean something like using the elative case when the ablative might be more appropriate?

How common are noun-case errors among people who have a high school education? I mean something like using the elative case when the ablative might be more appropriate?

Nonexistent. I don't think even preschool children ever mix those. I don't have kids, so I can't say how it is with the kids who are just learning to speak.

Also in English, you don't see people mixing "into" and "onto" even remotely as often as the mistakes the linked article talked about.

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

#182

Post by stan_rogers »

Graham24 wrote: post #175
irahul wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My issue is if you're unable to delineate between "it's" and "its" and it's the language you've been speaking natively for the past 25 years, I tend to doubt your ability to know what form of "const" to use in C++. Eh, how about asking me about const-correctness than inferring from my use of "it's" and "its"? You know, you can actually talk about const-correctness instead of inferring from the grammar test. > At th…

tut, tut. "People with bad grammar should be hung".

It should be hanged, actually, when referring to capital punishment, except when drawing and quartering are involved. It's a quirk of the language; hung is correct in most circumstances.

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

#183

Post by quotemstr »

hythloday wrote: post #126

Just to illustrate what a morass "poor grammar" is, I have, wearing my ex-professional proofreader hat, gone through the article to highlight the areas where I could find fault with the article for incorrect usage. People Who Use Poor Grammar should be: People Who Use Grammar Poorly. I have a "zero tolerance approach" should be: I have a zero-tolerance approach. people who mix up their itses should be: people who mix…

All the examples you cite are stylistic choices and have nothing to do with "grammar". (I also personally disagree with all your suggested edits, especially the first.) Using Hungarian notation in C may be poor style, but it conforms to the C grammar.

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

#184

Post by einhverfr »

ianterrell wrote: post #98
bane wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Whom" is also almost impossibly archaic and no longer considered part of modern English (having almost completely fallen out of usage around the start of the 20th century). It survives almost entirely in discussions of when to use it and almost never appears in modern writing except as a demonstration of what linguists call a "prestige form". "To whom did you give it?" vs. "Who did you give it to?" the latter is mor…

Huh. Really? I use whom all the time, and most of my friends do as well. Granted, a) we're all snobs, and b) we don't use it in every case we should, but we still use it. Maybe we're part of this little post 2000 resurgence: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=whom&year_s...

"Whom" makes you sound a bit dated. Etymologists will get the joke. ;-)

(I suppose I should explain it. "Whom" comes from a dative case, and would is not descended from a word that would be used for direct objects, but only for a subset of indirect objects and prepositional objects. However if elative uses relate to elated things, then surely dative uses in English relate to dated things, right?)

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

#185

Post by drivingmenuts »

nirvdrum wrote: post #85
irahul wrote: post #17

My train of thoughts: > Everyone who applies for a position at either of my companies, iFixit or Dozuki, takes a mandatory grammar test. Whoa. Who do you think you are - google? What makes you think I am going to sit through your grammar test? If I am agreeing to your grammar test, either you are one of the most desirable places to work for(never heard of you), or economy is about to collapse and this is the only job…

My issue is if you're unable to delineate between "it's" and "its" and it's the language you've been speaking natively for the past 25 years, I tend to doubt your ability to know what form of "const" to use in C++. At the very least, lack of proofreading suggests to me you might be rash with your code as well. Many disagree with me on this point of view, but routinely I've found that those that express themselves wel…

Here's a thought: you're assuming I care equally about grammar and programming.

If I use the wrong form of "it's" in a sentence, someone might wince somewhere (possible even rage a bit). No one is going to die.

If I use the wrong form of const, it's possible that all hell will rain down upon the Earth and millions will die in horrible gut-wrenching pain, clasping their loved ones to their chest and bemoaning the gods (the desirability of such an outcome is a wholly different matter).

The two issues do not equate at all.

ED: fixed spelling of "grammar".

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

#186

Post by Goronmon »

gawker wrote: post #103
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?

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.

>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.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but this seems really silly. Replace "make a bed" with something like "kick a 40 yard field goal" or "craft a wooden chair" or more simply "tie a Windsor knot". All your testing is whether they care about that particular task that is in no way related to skills you actually need.

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

#187

Post by keithpeter »

clarkevans wrote: post #71
irahul wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like I am applying for a programming job, and I don't see why I have to subject myself to your whims. Consider that instead of grammar, I am advocating I will only hire people who can do 50 push-ups. After all, what can I expect from people who are sloppy towards something as important their own bodies. What's so bad about 50 push-ups? Any fit person(excluding extenuating circumstances) should be able to do…

What? If you're writing software being able to produce clear documentation, write-ups, and other supplemental materials is quite important. In some cases, far more important than writing the actual code. In some hires I've used a descriptive writing assignment, where I ask the candidate to describe in words what they are looking at. You can learn much from these things, including: analysis skills, close looking, how…

"...If you're writing software being able to produce clear documentation, write-ups, and other supplemental materials is quite important. In some cases, far more important than writing the actual code."

Does the company in the original post not recognise the function of an editor?

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

#188

Post by excuse-me »

nirvdrum wrote: post #163
nollidge wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but typically it's deliberate on the part of the author.

Right. You should know the rules so you know when to break them. Stephen King hits on this point well in "On Writing." That book is a great read and takes a very non-parochial approach to writing.

If you are Joyce you can get away with changing the rules - but nobody is going to read you anyway.

Similarly if you are Knuth you can talk about literate programming replacing C but nobody is going to hire you to do embedded development

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

#189

Post by excuse-me »

Alex3917 wrote: post #135
tokenadult wrote: post #94

Once again here on Hacker News we are talking about hiring procedures for technical companies. Many people find this topic interesting, because most of us have applied for a job at least once, and many of us have been in a position to recommend someone else for a job, or to hire someone for a job. From participants in earlier discussions I have learned about many useful references on the subject, which I have gathere…

Great post. Thought this was interesting from the Schmidt & Hunter article: "This meta-analysis found that the validity of GMA for predicting job performance was .58 for professional managerial jobs, .56 for high level complex technical jobs, .51 for medium complexity jobs, .40 for semi-skilled jobs, and .23 for completely unskilled jobs." Apparently having a high IQ is a better predictor of being a good business guy…

Being prepared to do GMA style tests correlates with business guys.

Telling the interviewer to go XXXX himself and starting your own company correlates with good tech guys

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

#190

Post by pka »

sampo wrote: post #162
nirvdrum wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue is if you're unable to delineate between "it's" and "its" and it's the language you've been speaking natively for the past 25 years, I tend to doubt your ability to know what form of "const" to use in C++. At the very least, lack of proofreading suggests to me you might be rash with your code as well. Many disagree with me on this point of view, but routinely I've found that those that express themselves wel…

As a non-native speaker of English, I have been wondering how much signal it would be appropriate for me to infer from the kind of sloppy grammar that is typical only for native speakers of English? [1] I learned English at school as a second language, and we would always start with the written form, and then learn how to pronounce. So my "hash table" is primarily organized based on the written form, and it would be…

Absolutely agree. I would never be able to take anybody seriously (in terms of hiring them) who can't spell or get basic grammar right in my native tongue, but this tends to be quite common in written English.

How much can one infer from the fact that a native speaker mixes up "they're" and "their"?

Post reply on HN