431–440 of 441 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off topic here. I am a grad student looking for an internship in India, I tried as many good companies I could but sending emails somehow doesn't feel right. I would like to try amazon India. Can you point me in the right direction? I am kinda lost.
http://www.amazon.jobs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that requires me to actually go out and buy a calculator. For a single use. It's so incredibly wasteful and forces me to go completely out of my way to complete the process.
Then buy one from goodwill or borrow one? Most people over 50 still have them. You have to buy/do a lot more annoying shit during a job search. I have clothes that are solely for job interviews and I have to replace them if I want to start interviewing again since I gained weight. Complaining about spending a dollar on a calculator is like complaining you have to buy paper to print your resume on.
You'll have job interview clothes and printed resumes as part of every job hunt. That's just a part of the job hunt itself; there's expectations that you'd need those if you're looking for a job.
A basic calculator, without the ability to use an alternative, is not, and forcing someone to go out of their way just to get through your setup, meanwhile being treated like a cheating high schooler, is not going to make them want to work for your company.
I'm a grown ass man, I don't need to be treated like I'm going to cheat at an interview, especially when said cheating can easily be exposed in any sort of discussion or the first day on the job. Requiring a calculator is fine, but disallowing people from using basic tools they have available to complete the same task because of the potential of cheating (how can you even cheat on a coding challenge with a graphing calculator, anyway) is ludicrous. A 1 minute discussion about the code I just wrote can tell you just as much about whether I cheated or not as the arbitrary rules imposed here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are you defining "right to work" in this context? I thought that had to do with not requiring employees to join a labor union?
When talking about employment law, "the right to work states" is often used as a generic category used to refer to states with weak employee protections, since the right to work states generally are also red states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Right_to_Work_states.svg
"Right-to-work laws are statutes in a reported 26 states in the United States that are an effort to give employees the right to work without being required or compelled to join to a union."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is a computer looking at the applicant data, including their faces, more insidious than humans looking at it? In either case the company could claim they were totally not paying attention to skin color.
You should check out the history of IQ testing particularly in the US. On paper, it seemed to be a perfectly objective way to determine an individual's intelligence. But correlating the data, it was later shown to disadvantage blacks and that is why IQ testing for jobs is now illegal.
You could always just see how it is contacting your webcam and then just change the stream of data to some other source that is not hte webcam
Mic -> maybe mess around with how it is contacting your mic and (ports? idk) and load some really annoying music to pipe through to it.
Physical Locaiton -> do laptops have built in GPS or is it just off your ip address? if so could you just use VPN? Have it come from like some random place.
A firm similar to Proctorio, HireSuccess, says this on their website: > Hire Success does not offer nor provide any option where an Applicant is required to submit a photograph or video response to questions because we believe it violates EEOC Guidelines. I wonder how Proctorio + Amazon reconcile that viewpoint. Furthermore, if you read the EEOC, some of Proctorio's questions seem to really push the rule: If an emplo…
On the other hand, if submitting a photograph or video of the applicant violated EEOC Guidelines, in-house interviews, which are the vast majority of interviews, would also be in violation, so this is an untenable position relative to the status quo.
Setting aside their predictive power, questions related to logical reasoning are most definitely job-related in an interview process for a technical position that explicitly requires logical and deductive reasoning skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just sends the wrong message. As a company, you are advocating tech that spies on people or in this case the test taker. Overall, it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth that a company would use technology such as this. What else would they be okay with doing once you start working there? Why not do an onsite if you want to make sure of the validity?
Isn't a normal class room in which you take tests while required to be silent and with an instructor/TA/proctor keeping en eye on you very much akin to spying on people? (using people rather than tech, but why is that distinction important?)
I can understand why ProctorU does what it does, but that process puts a significant burden on the test taker, one which is entirely different than taking a proctored exam in a classroom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not administer it in the first place. Paid homework projects are far superior. Plagiarism checks can be run on the provided solutions, and a follow-up conversation concerning the project at the interview should easily suss out anyone who had a third party to do it for them. That approach also has the advantage of actually being a relevant to the position—unlike some generalized intelligence test. Frankly if people ar…
> conversation [...] should easily suss out anyone who had a third party to do it for them This will lead to hiring people who can be coached until they sort of understand a solution, although they still couldn't create it.
Every non-perfect solution is worthless?
I've found that the answer to all this is to give a 30-60m remote test (no proctoring), where they get to write the thing as they want, and a 15m discussion where you analyze their solution and assign one new feature then let them walk you through the changes. No code, no whiteboard, just discussion.
A lot of people can't whiteboard code from scratch but can take a piece of code they've just written and discuss next steps. And it's also an actual work skill that many good coders are bad at, so it gives you a good insight into high and low-level people.