51–60 of 88 posts
What filter? I didn't see him mention the filter he's using. Maybe he means he rejects a company unless it has an adaptive interview. But, how can you do that unless you take the interview?
Yes. I have a new rule with recruiters. If you are trying to recruit me, make me an offer. Otherwise, go away. You called me, not the other way around. I'm not going to jump through a bunch of your hoops to prove to you for free that I can do what you already know that I can do just by looking at my resume, looking at some of my public projects, and asking me questions in an informal, short interview. And I'm certain…
What I've done should be proof enough. It really isn't. It may be indicative of your technical ability however your past experience doesn't give me any indication if you'd be a good culture fit.
Peroni writes in his top-level comment, "Give the candidate a realistic technical challenge to complete in a realistic timeframe, in an environment that will be indicative of the environment they would expect to work in should they succeed in getting the job." And of course that is saying "Give the candidate a work-sample test." That's a very well validated hiring procedure,[1] one that every company ought to use for…
That's a very well-researched comment! There a few things probably worth noting. Roth, Bobko and McFarland have been pretty active in this topic for the past decade. They've found the validity coefficient cited by Schmidt and Hunter in 1998 is likely an over-estimate due to relying on research conducted when there were less rigorous statistical and methodological best-practices. [1] http://www.psychologie.uni-mannhei…
I'd say asking a candidate to implement levenshtein distance in an interview (probably not the best question to ask I'd say) is more about creating a level playing field for candidates who might not have "attended and spoken at relevant conferences" or have "a bunch of apps doing mission-critical work in production", but might be thoroughly productive and successful at XCorp nonetheless. In fact, a candidate might ha…
In fact, that's kinda the point. Each candidate should be evaluated on the unique experience they bring to the table. Trying to create the illusion of a level playing field by standardizing on generic code challenges in interview exercises is just that, an illusion.
This person sounds completely insufferable. He basically is declaring himself too good for interviews (except for C-level execs, whom he apparently tolerates). Heaven forbid you don't just assume Ernie Miller is god's gift to your job position, because he is Ernie Miller and he is a special unique snowflake who is not to be insulted with petty questions pertaining to his ability to do the job. Anyway, good luck with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you actually read the article, or just the big, bold letters? The point wasn't that I am special. It's that each person is an individual, and a company that doesn't recognize that situations differ and make reasonable accommodations is unlikely to be a company at which I (or many like me, if the comments are any indicator) would enjoy working.
Because nothing makes a hiring process more fair and accurate than changing the rules for each candidate.
If a worker is going to work remotely, is it a better evaluation of her skill to have her do her coding test remotely or have her do it in the office? Likewise, is it fair to ask a potential remote worker to take on an endeavor that's much more cumbersome than it would be for an in-office worker.
The other part of the argument is that the hiring company may be affecting its ability to evaluate a candidate by subjecting him to a situation that's pretty different from the job's reality. Ostensibly, the point of having someone work out of the office is to see how well he'll do if he gets the job, but in the case of a remote worker, this may not be a good indicator.
I think all of this is highly debatable, and there's probably no right answer, but there is lots of food for thought!
Yes. I have a new rule with recruiters. If you are trying to recruit me, make me an offer. Otherwise, go away. You called me, not the other way around. I'm not going to jump through a bunch of your hoops to prove to you for free that I can do what you already know that I can do just by looking at my resume, looking at some of my public projects, and asking me questions in an informal, short interview. And I'm certain…
Mine is simpler: "Can I work remotely?" It seems to make them go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Get a feel for their personality, the things that motivate them, the things that annoy them, the things that inspire them, etc. What exactly are you trying to determine from this? The problem with such open-ended types of questions is that all objectivity is lost. You end up picking people who mirror your own motivations, annoyances, etc. Unless you are sure your question will produce actual signal in an objective m…
If technical competency has already been established, then there should be no problem with asking these kinds of subjective questions since it's meant to screen for a subjective area (team/culture fit).
1. Write some piece of code that you think is cool. It doesn't have to originally be yours, and if it would take too long to recreate exactly, write it out in pseudo code and explain how it works and why you chose it.
2. (Slightly more common, and I've asked this before) We are having Problem A, and it would be within the scope of your responsibilities. How would you approach it?
the interviewer asks follow up questions to both and hopefully learns something in the process.