5 ms·

The problem is: Writing good resumes and having a lot of experience with programming is a good heuristic for "experience" and "knows how to play the game" but n

The problem is: Writing good resumes and having a lot of experience with programming is a good heuristic for "experience" and "knows how to play the game" but not meaningfully useful for "excellent at programming". Work-sample tests measure the latter. A worker's experience is a heuristic for programming skill, but a heuristic of a heuristic is like an average of a set of averages: Useless.

MiddleEndian 11y ago
Just to play devil's advocate, being excellent at programming is also only a heuristic for working as a professional programmer.
- eli 11y ago
  Very true! I find it disappointing that many candidates appear to put little effort in their cover letter. It's a chance to show me you can communicate well, which is maybe the single most important skill in working on a team.
  - danbolt 11y ago
    I feel like cover letters are an easy way to show that you've thought about the company you're applying for, but in my experience I've never got the impression that my cover letter was actually read in the application process. I could be plenty wrong though, and I'd love to hear from HR/recruiters about their experiences with cover letters.
    - eli 11y ago
      I dunno. I'm sure some places don't read them at all. But I read (or at least skim) every cover letter that comes across my desk before looking at the resume.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  Sure, but it's O(n) rather than O(n^2). Hiring decisions are hard to generalize, because different companies have different needs at different times.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    Which makes it extra frustrating that hiring practices are the most often cargo-culted practices in this industry. I feel like the root of hiring problems is that most companies know neither what they need or how to identify those features in a candidate.
    - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
      Sounds like a lucrative itch to scratch.
  - MiddleEndian 11y ago
    >Sure, but it's O(n) rather than O(n^2). Won't disagree there!
pc86 11y ago
You don't want to hire people who are incapable of functioning in a professional setting or interacting with coworkers, so I'm not sure expecting experience and a well-crafted resume (regardless of the content) is a problem.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  Just as grep and cat solve different problems, work-sample tests and traditional resume-based hiring practices select for different candidates. I wasn't arguing in favor of work-sample tests for every company and every candidate, just saying their scope is different (although work-sample tests are more likely to find the untapped potential in the marketplace).
_ak 11y ago
That's what probation periods are for. Use them.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  What do you mean by probation periods? Something like... "Hi, I'd like to ask you to work for a very temporary contract with us so, if it doesn't work out, you have to scramble to find more work and maybe risk homelessness."
  - to3m 11y ago
    This is pretty standard in the UK. Your new full-time job is commonly effectively at-will for the first 3 months, and possibly more. See, e.g., http://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/probation-periods-19677/ http://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/probation-periods-19677/
    - mtberatwork 11y ago
      As far as my experiences go, US companies (at least at the enterprise level) generally seem to have ~4 month probationary periods for new hires.
      - rmah 11y ago
        "probationary period" has no real legal meaning in almost all US states.
    - acjacobson 11y ago
      In the US almost all employment is at-will - even if you've worked at a company for years. Probationary periods here typically mean that you are hired as an independent contractor without the benefits that are usually given with a full-time position such as health, dental, and retirement benefits.
      - fluxquanta 11y ago
mtberatwork 11y ago
> Work-sample tests measure the latter. I think that's debatable. The quality of your measurement is then simply a function of how well your tests are in the first place. Do you really think giving a person FizzBuzz is any kind of accurate predictor of future success at a job?
- sarciszewski 11y ago
  (Switching back to my old account because rate limits.) I wouldn't ever use something like FizzBuzz to assess a candidate. It would be more of "here's a mostly finished sample application with a corresponding SQL file, add this feature (e.g. a search bar for a blog) and fix any (intentionally introduced) security bugs you find". They would be evaluated based on how successfully they complete the main task, and if they have an eye for finding/patching vulnerabilities, that's a bonus that can be used as a secondary selector if a lot of candidates pass. If no one does, it won't be used against them. That's how I'd approach it, personally. Something specific to the kind of work we're doing, but abstract enough to be approachable without a lot of insider knowledge.
- SilasX 11y ago
  FizzBuzz isn't a test of whether a candidate will succeed, but of whether they will definitely fail. Someone who passes may be good or bad, but someone who can't do it is definitely not qualified.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Someone who can't do it is definitely not qualified to do fizzbuzz level programming off the cuff in a stressful interview situation. Whether that tells you anything about their ability to do fizzbuzz level programming in a more normal work environment is an open question. There are a few HN readers who've had experience of "choking" on fizzbuzz level programming tests during interviews - even though it's trivial there's something about the interview situation that causes some people to sometimes freeze.

MiddleEndian 11y ago

Just to play devil's advocate, being excellent at programming is also only a heuristic for working as a professional programmer.

eli 11y ago
Very true! I find it disappointing that many candidates appear to put little effort in their cover letter. It's a chance to show me you can communicate well, which is maybe the single most important skill in working on a team.
- danbolt 11y ago
  I feel like cover letters are an easy way to show that you've thought about the company you're applying for, but in my experience I've never got the impression that my cover letter was actually read in the application process. I could be plenty wrong though, and I'd love to hear from HR/recruiters about their experiences with cover letters.
  - eli 11y ago
    I dunno. I'm sure some places don't read them at all. But I read (or at least skim) every cover letter that comes across my desk before looking at the resume.
CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
Sure, but it's O(n) rather than O(n^2). Hiring decisions are hard to generalize, because different companies have different needs at different times.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  Which makes it extra frustrating that hiring practices are the most often cargo-culted practices in this industry. I feel like the root of hiring problems is that most companies know neither what they need or how to identify those features in a candidate.
  - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
    Sounds like a lucrative itch to scratch.
- MiddleEndian 11y ago
  >Sure, but it's O(n) rather than O(n^2). Won't disagree there!

pc86 11y ago

You don't want to hire people who are incapable of functioning in a professional setting or interacting with coworkers, so I'm not sure expecting experience and a well-crafted resume (regardless of the content) is a problem.

CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
Just as grep and cat solve different problems, work-sample tests and traditional resume-based hiring practices select for different candidates. I wasn't arguing in favor of work-sample tests for every company and every candidate, just saying their scope is different (although work-sample tests are more likely to find the untapped potential in the marketplace).

_ak 11y ago

That's what probation periods are for. Use them.

CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
What do you mean by probation periods? Something like... "Hi, I'd like to ask you to work for a very temporary contract with us so, if it doesn't work out, you have to scramble to find more work and maybe risk homelessness."
- to3m 11y ago
  This is pretty standard in the UK. Your new full-time job is commonly effectively at-will for the first 3 months, and possibly more. See, e.g., http://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/probation-periods-19677/ http://www.jobsite.co.uk/worklife/probation-periods-19677/
  - mtberatwork 11y ago
    As far as my experiences go, US companies (at least at the enterprise level) generally seem to have ~4 month probationary periods for new hires.
    - rmah 11y ago
      "probationary period" has no real legal meaning in almost all US states.
  - acjacobson 11y ago
    In the US almost all employment is at-will - even if you've worked at a company for years. Probationary periods here typically mean that you are hired as an independent contractor without the benefits that are usually given with a full-time position such as health, dental, and retirement benefits.
    - fluxquanta 11y ago

mtberatwork 11y ago

> Work-sample tests measure the latter. I think that's debatable. The quality of your measurement is then simply a function of how well your tests are in the first place. Do you really think giving a person FizzBuzz is any kind of accurate predictor of future success at a job?

sarciszewski 11y ago
(Switching back to my old account because rate limits.) I wouldn't ever use something like FizzBuzz to assess a candidate. It would be more of "here's a mostly finished sample application with a corresponding SQL file, add this feature (e.g. a search bar for a blog) and fix any (intentionally introduced) security bugs you find". They would be evaluated based on how successfully they complete the main task, and if they have an eye for finding/patching vulnerabilities, that's a bonus that can be used as a secondary selector if a lot of candidates pass. If no one does, it won't be used against them. That's how I'd approach it, personally. Something specific to the kind of work we're doing, but abstract enough to be approachable without a lot of insider knowledge.
SilasX 11y ago
FizzBuzz isn't a test of whether a candidate will succeed, but of whether they will definitely fail. Someone who passes may be good or bad, but someone who can't do it is definitely not qualified.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Someone who can't do it is definitely not qualified to do fizzbuzz level programming off the cuff in a stressful interview situation. Whether that tells you anything about their ability to do fizzbuzz level programming in a more normal work environment is an open question. There are a few HN readers who've had experience of "choking" on fizzbuzz level programming tests during interviews - even though it's trivial there's something about the interview situation that causes some people to sometimes freeze.