4 ms·

> Being given a pre-packaged task to complete feels very procedural and bland... This part is important: > Having a consistent test also allows me to compare

by i_s 11y ago

> Being given a pre-packaged task to complete feels very procedural and bland... This part is important: > Having a consistent test also allows me to compare candidates easily and without bias. Also, I think most people would care more about the content of the exercise, rather than whether it is prepackaged or not.

padolsey 11y ago
I get that. I just would rather not feel like a monkey being prodded whenever I attend an interview. An interview being repeatable (for comparative purposes) brings no value to the candidate.
- RKoutnik 11y ago
  It does if the candidate is something that the interviewer might be biased against (race, gender, opinions on Star Wars). Avoiding bias in interviews helps everyone except those who rely on irrelevant qualities to get jobs.
  - padolsey 11y ago
    Maybe, but I feel that the answer to such biases is to introspect and understand your potential prejudgements, and then not let them specifically sway you. Anyway, the accepted alternative, an entirely meritocratic process, is fraught with issues too, as the playing field is inegalitarian to begin with -- so those candidates who might be the victims of unfair biases could already be at a disadvantage since they might not have received the privileges that preempt meritocratic success. It is assumed that relying totally on a candidate's coding ability somehow avoids the issue of bias and works to mend our diversity issues in this sector, but it actually merely plays into the entrenched state of things. I don't have a solution, but this entire problem-set is certainly deserving of more nuanced thought.
sheepmullet 11y ago
> This part is important: > Having a consistent test also allows me to compare candidates easily and without bias. No, it isn't. The person who performs best on the test is often not the person who will perform the best on the job. Tests like these should always be pass/fail.

by i_s 11y ago

padolsey 11y ago

I get that. I just would rather not feel like a monkey being prodded whenever I attend an interview. An interview being repeatable (for comparative purposes) brings no value to the candidate.

RKoutnik 11y ago
It does if the candidate is something that the interviewer might be biased against (race, gender, opinions on Star Wars). Avoiding bias in interviews helps everyone except those who rely on irrelevant qualities to get jobs.
- padolsey 11y ago
  Maybe, but I feel that the answer to such biases is to introspect and understand your potential prejudgements, and then not let them specifically sway you. Anyway, the accepted alternative, an entirely meritocratic process, is fraught with issues too, as the playing field is inegalitarian to begin with -- so those candidates who might be the victims of unfair biases could already be at a disadvantage since they might not have received the privileges that preempt meritocratic success. It is assumed that relying totally on a candidate's coding ability somehow avoids the issue of bias and works to mend our diversity issues in this sector, but it actually merely plays into the entrenched state of things. I don't have a solution, but this entire problem-set is certainly deserving of more nuanced thought.

sheepmullet 11y ago

> This part is important: > Having a consistent test also allows me to compare candidates easily and without bias. No, it isn't. The person who performs best on the test is often not the person who will perform the best on the job. Tests like these should always be pass/fail.