321–330 of 403 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't get a perfect score, but it was good enough to get what I wanted.
Well, then what if someone with a better score got the job you were going for, even though they are not smarter, just prepared more for the test?
> Take-home projects or a trial period of some kind. This makes the most intuitive sense by far: having candidates do a representative slice of the job gives you a solid idea of whether they'd be any good at it. Combining this with structured interviews was (before AI) considered a gold standard; you'd get a sense of who they are and how they work by talking, have a way to compare them pretty objectively to other can…
Best middle ground I ever had was an interview where they impose a strict 1 hour (maybe it was 90 minutes, idk) time limit between when I got the prompt and when I emailed them back. Then they spent some time looking over it, then I had an interview with an engineer who had read my code and we chatted about it. Why I had made certain decisions, what corners were cut because of the time limit, etc. Felt very fair. Not…
there has been a proliferation of “take home” exercises that are them just trying to pick your brain for problems they’re struggling with. I have had a “take home” project that led to a trial contract employment that required me doing a ton of work for free I knew they had used later, because I saw the trial API key I had set up for the project used much later on down the line. Never got paid, clearly work was stolen, not much you can do about it and there’s a real power imbalance there that’s difficult to really do much about. Was a tough lesson. When done right I think it’s the best way to screen for good candidates that may not be good live coding interviewers.
I do take the position that like, I get why you may have a culture where live pair programming in high pressure situations may be valued. But in most orgs the async nature of -> get requirement -> implement asynchronously -> seek feedback and adjustments -> iterate is far more realistic, but when you deliver something, never hear back, get hit with the whole “we’re going with another candidate” feedback feels like you just got ripped off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you yourself has just given an example how easy it is to temporarily get good at "test-filling", by simply preparing for that. The question is whether a given test measures anything relevant - did your friend become a better programmer for doing 6 weeks of leetcodes? E.g. what kind of experience did he gain about large code bases and how to handle those? Continuing your analogy, would you fly with a pilot who dril…
Regardless of the content, a test filters for people willing to put in the work to pass. All else being equal, given two candidates, where one has passed a test and another one who didn't bother, the first one sends a stronger signal to the potential employer. It's still worth discussing if the particular test is ideal, but the answer IMO is not to say let's remove tests in general.
He's the kind of person I'd want to hire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ground school comes first at IFT https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/usaf_ift.html Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree.
>Ground school comes first at IFT There is no singular "IFT"... you happened to find one IFT among hundreds across the U.S. that has such a syllabus, great... but it does not come first as requirement mandated either by law/regulation or convention. Here is the syllabus for a different FAA Part 61 and 141 approved IFT program that uses an integrated approach with the following quote: "Each Module contains both a flig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ground school comes first at IFT https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/usaf_ift.html Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree.
>Ground school comes first at IFT There is no singular "IFT"... you happened to find one IFT among hundreds across the U.S. that has such a syllabus, great... but it does not come first as requirement mandated either by law/regulation or convention. Here is the syllabus for a different FAA Part 61 and 141 approved IFT program that uses an integrated approach with the following quote: "Each Module contains both a flig…
You goofed. A palm tree is not pedantically considered a tree. You made that up.
https://texastreesurgeons.com/blog/2025/01/03/palm-trees-are...
> odds are it came from a tree >> there are natural sources of wood that don't come from trees
Confirms I was correct.
> Each Module contains both a flight and ground lesson.
And the ground lesson comes first. I read your link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ground school comes first at IFT There is no singular "IFT"... you happened to find one IFT among hundreds across the U.S. that has such a syllabus, great... but it does not come first as requirement mandated either by law/regulation or convention. Here is the syllabus for a different FAA Part 61 and 141 approved IFT program that uses an integrated approach with the following quote: "Each Module contains both a flig…
The USAF is not subject to (most) FAA regulations. As far as I know this also extends to training: the USAF does not follow either of the FAA’s Part 61 or 141 flight training syllabi. So bringing up parts 61 and 141 doesn’t really refute the parent’s point. Regardless, as a civilian, you do have to pass a written multiple-choice test on flying theory before you can solo. Any time you spend in the cockpit before passi…
I do not consider that flight training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not in the sense of being good at taking tests The trick to doing well on the SATs is to pay attention in class.
The trick is to prepare specifically for SATs. One would say the tests (and job interviews) should have been designed with the original intent of testing candidates AS IS, i.e. preparing specifically for such tests should have been considered as cheating... But at some point it turned into prep gymnastics, and measuring how desperate the candidates are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, then what if someone with a better score got the job you were going for, even though they are not smarter, just prepared more for the test?
I'd get the jobs I wanted by bringing samples of my work to the interview.
Company is Alpha Vantage: https://beaverhand.com/apply/alpha-vantage-gtm-team-various-...
> Low ego: There can be significant economic upside to this role as things progress, but the nature of this role day-to-day may involve things that can be less exciting / more mundane (it's a job, after all!) What does this mean?