Live data from Hacker News

I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar

blogs.hbr.org

281–290 of 334 posts

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

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god. I hate this attitude. Respect is a right, not a privilege. Why should anyone have to earn something so basic? Do we also have to earn our privilege to breathe air? We're all equals and equally deserve respect. Yes, even you after you muttered that banality.

Equals? Hardly. Some people, for example, are worse than others at English grammar--thus the OP. What does respect mean to you, out of curiosity?

I would say that we're definitely not identical, but we can all be equal.

A better question, though I will answer yours shortly, is what does equality mean? It's simply the relative value we assign something. The thing is, we can think in terms of valuable and not valuable or we can skip the duality altogether and see everything on an equal level. A spade is thoroughly unvaluable if you have no hole to dig yet indispensable when you do. So what is it's absolute value? Is it equal to a saw? Is one person equal to another? It all depends on your perspective.

The problem with seeing inequality between people in terms of respect is that you will treat some of your fellow man badly, since you don't respect them. If their value is merely a matter of perspective, which is ever changing, would it not make more sense to see past our biases and show everyone respect, whether they are equal to what we currently identify as respect worthy or not?

To me, respect means to consider someone in high regard. In my experience, how I look at people ends up affecting how they act. People always tend towards living up to the expectations placed on them. By showing someone that I don't respect them, I am pushing them down rather than helping them up.

Putting it another way, when someone is on the defensive, because someone else looks down on them and does not show them respect, they close up and are not receptive to new information. By showing them respect even if they are bad at something, they are likely to listen to what you have to say and change how they act as a result of your words. Disrespecting someone with - "you type like an idiot" or ignoring them, will make them respond appropriately. Validating their actions - "cool, a more condensed form of English!" then suggesting something else - "I've had lots of success finding a job by writing like this", they might actually change.

If we want society (and spelling) to improve, we have to embrace those we call idiots and teach them, not push them away.

If someone is an awesome programmer but can't write English to save his life, why not educate him? You'll certainly have a more loyal employee if he feels that he's gained important skills from you.

tl;dr - Disrespect is damaging, respect is nurturing. Respect everyone and the sun will shine brighter.

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

#282
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".

Am I missing the joke?

People are hanged, portraits are hung.

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

#283
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…

While I could exhaustively ask about every aspect of every language you might have to work in, it's far simpler to use a proxy. The proxy in this case is your native language and seems to work rather well. And since your job certainly isn't going to be writing code for 8 hours straight, the ability to communicate well is a good skill to have. For what it's worth, I use other aspects to proxy fit and ability as well.…

> The proxy in this case is your native language and seems to work rather well.

No, it does not. The very notion that someone who always uses "its" and "it's" understands const-correctness is ridiculous.

Command over native language doesn't signify programming prowess. You are imagining things or extrapolating your personal anecdotes to absolutes. Please provide citations if it's a proven fact.

> For what it's worth, I use other aspects to proxy fit and ability as well. If you can't bother to clean up before an interview, I have a pretty reasonable idea of how you conduct yourself.

What on earth does cleaning up mean? I shower in the morning. I am not going to take a special shower for you. Whether or not I shave depends on my mood. I don't see how on earth an interview with you should affect my facial hairs. I am not coming in looking like a hobo, and anything beyond that isn't your call at all.

Why the hell people count on metric which doesn't indicate a person's qualities relevant to the job? Whatever the fuck happened to phone screening, checking up open source projects, on-site problem solving, having a conversation, checking up references. Where and why the fuck wearing a suit or taking a grammar test came into picture?

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

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But grammar is just a set of arbitrary rules that some person or group of people decided were correct. That's like saying the evolutionary tree of life is just a set of arbitrary rules someone came up with. It's not, it's a description of an existing evolved system. Grammar wasn't handed down from on high by an authority, it's an evolved, undirected cultural artifact. There were definitely influential actors, like…

> it's a description of an existing evolved system. This is not how the people who get angriest about grammar see it. They demand that splitting an infinitive is wrong, they demand that the passive voice is wrong (and those demands get stronger the more often they themselves use it), and they demand any number of other idiot things of the language, because they don't know the difference between grammar and style, and…

> Don't give this test to people who speak AAVE: You'll be considered racist.

Perhaps, but probably not. In my understanding most AAVE speakers (and other "low-class" dialects, for that matter) are bidialectical with Standard American English and can code-switch to it in more formal situations. And, those who aren't able to do so likely haven't been exposed to the education and training necessary to even be qualified for a job like this in the first place - they surely would've picked it up along the way.

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

#285
post #141
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You are taking it to the extreme where there are only 2 states: grammar purists and monkeys banging at keyboard. Someone who mixes up "its" and "it's" is capable of all the important stuff you listed. I mix "its" a…

So teach yourself not to make the mistakes because the next person in behind you working on your code might not know what you mean. If you know the difference it's just laziness to not communicate correctly. As for periods outside of parentheses or not, that's syntax, not grammar. Your position here is weak. Good grammar is an indication that the person wielding the language at least takes care over what they're doin…

> So teach yourself not to make the mistakes because the next person in behind you working on your code might not know what you mean.

For the nth time, I am not talking about "monkeys banging on keyboard" grammar.

> As for periods outside of parentheses or not, that's syntax, not grammar

Syntax is not grammar?

It isn't that hard to fact-check before confidently correcting someone.

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

> Good grammar is an indication that the person wielding the language at least takes care over what they're doing.

Good grammar is an indication of good grammar, and that's that. If you believe it's otherwise, well, your believes aren't fact. Please provide citations.

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

#286
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…

Absolutely you do not have to subject yourself to his whims. You would be free to walk out the door if you found the grammar test offensive, or the push-ups test, or the rope-skipping test. You do not deserve respect. Ever. You must always earn it.

> Absolutely you do not have to subject yourself to his whims. You would be free to walk out the door if you found the grammar test offensive, or the push-ups test, or the rope-skipping test.

> You do not deserve respect. Ever. You must always earn it.

There are multiple types of respect. "One human being to another" is the basic type. Everyone deserves that. Another is earned. And the last one is context dependent.

If I am coming in for a programming job, there are expectations and norms. I come in and you ask me to unclog the toilet since you read in some blog about some CEO doing it or it represents loyalty or commitment or whatever the fuck, I am free to walk out and I will walk out. But that doesn't excuse the fact that you didn't warrant me the respect I deserved.

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

#287
post #95
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.

> If you're writing more code than natural language (documentation, discussion of specs, interaction with the team, etc) something is extremely wrong.

As long as we are just throwing claims around, I posit unless the code you write isn't 99% of what you write, something is extremely fucked up, and the orcs will take over the world.

I don't see how your claim is more valid or invalid than mine. None of the claims are backed by data, and personal perceptions are, well, personal. No one other than person experiencing it gives a damn.

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

#288
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…

"Apart from my words, I have my intent, thoughts, opinions, facts. Words are a medium." But in written communication all those other things must be conveyed by your words . That's what writing is.

> But in written communication all those other things must be conveyed by your words.

> That's what writing is.

So if I writing is just words, my grammatically correct words are as good as Orwell's, right? Writing isn't just about words - words are but a minor detail. Why did anyone read "A Clockwork Orange" when it butchered words in some very creative ways?

Do you have anything interesting to say, are you bringing anything new to the table, are you reporting facts, is this an opinion piece, and a thousand other things are what makes writing a powerful medium. How to use correct grammar is a very small variable in the scheme of things.

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

#290
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the answer is "yes" to both of these then I would assume that the people who pass the test are English majors with minors in Linguistics ;-) I don't know. I am not a native speaker, and am not an English major, but the answer is "yes" to both of them. Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying people can't make out active and passive between "I wrote a letter", "A letter was written by me"? "Who" and "…

For example, consider "Are you responsible if papers were left on your desk?" Passive voice.

I don't know. English is a second language here in India, and the grammar covered in schools is pretty basic, and still I would wager most of people would recognize it's passive voice.
Post reply on HN