Live data from Hacker News

A hiring test I'd like to run

shkspr.mobi

201–203 of 203 posts

Re: A hiring test I'd like to run

#201

Honestly, I wish more companies would just tell you in advance of the interview what the specific prompt is going to be (and perhaps the evaluation criteria too). Sure, you could "cheat" by Googling the answer in advance or asking someone for help. But if the question's sufficiently open-ended, it's not that hard to suss out in follow up questions whether you have a deep first principles understanding of the subject…

I'm pretty sure if you give me a subject I know nothing about and a couple days to study I can teach myself about it, at least to the level of someone who has real experience in the subject which may be a couple of years out of use. So then how does a hiring manager know to filter me out?

Presumably, at some point, you'll be interviewed by someone with more up to date experience. And if you study enough to fool that person, that seems fine? It's a good sign you're capable of the job, prior experience be damned.

Re: A hiring test I'd like to run

#202
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted but I've had the same experience as well. They bias interviews that are supposed to be performance based. Resumes are a carefully crafted signal paper targeted at getting past an algorithm, recruiter, and into an interview. They're chock full of brand names (both education and company) and keywords. There's also unconcious bias based on the person's last name, locations that they've lived in th…

"last name" ?? In what way I could see some edge cases, which one where you thinking of ?

Names are known to be a vector for bias in resumes: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873

Re: A hiring test I'd like to run

#203
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're applying for a role that expects you to know an application then looking in the help is cheating. If you discourage your employees from learning you are going to have a lot of dumb employees. Even the developers who made excel do not know how to do everything that excel can do.

Some businesses need to hire people to do a job using an application in a very standardized way from day 1, there is no expectation that the person doing it will learn anything in the role, and when the software changes training is provided. The employer is in complete control of what is done and how the software is used. Figuring something out yourself is considered a bad thing because it's not the standardized way…

I get your point there is a lot of dumb work that employers give to dumb employees.

However if you want a dumb job done consistently in a standardised way with no mistakes you want automation not a humans.

Ultimately the competition who allows people to improve will improve themselves and the job until it's no longer necessary.

Post reply on HN