Re:Technical and non-technical tips for rocking your coding ...
by pklausler on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @12:17PM
(#15349283)
False negatives are not good, but false positives are really bad. The process is designed to avoid false positives.
Re:Technical and non-technical tips for rocking your coding ...
by ubernostrum on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @01:37PM
(#15350231)
I don't necessarily accept either of those statements. But since most companies just copy Google's interview process, it's worth pointing out that Google can afford to reject, say, 100 qualified people in order to avoid accidentally hiring one unqualified person. The average non-Google tech company cannot afford that.
Re:Technical and non-technical tips for rocking your coding ...
by pklausler on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @02:28PM
(#15350796)
You're exaggerating my point to make it look ridiculous.
Re:Technical and non-technical tips for rocking your coding ...
by ubernostrum on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @09:31PM
(#15353827)
Well, the whole industry operates on a model of avoiding false positive at literally any cost. So I don't think it's an exaggeration, though I certainly agree it's ridiculous.
http://blog.interviewing.io/you-cant-fix-diversity-in-tech-w...
The salient point is about halfway through when they put up the big chart of a couple thousand interviews and the stddev vs. mean of technical score, and say:
As you can see, roughly 25% of interviewees are consistent in their performance, but the rest are all over the place. And over a third of people with a high mean (>=3) technical performance bombed at least one interview.
Now, what this points to is a very clear failure of these standardized interviews with their allegedly "tee-ball" questions, because the results shown would be astoundingly unlikely in a world in which the interview process had any kind of consistency in identifying technical skill.
So, no. You're not doing what you think you're doing, and if you've got a high failure rate the problem is almost assuredly not with the candidates. It's with your interview process, or with you.