3 ms·

> We recognized her skill and experience and cut to the chase So, to clarify, you're advocating that programmers be hired based on resume, references, and a co

by akavi 10y ago

> We recognized her skill and experience and cut to the chase So, to clarify, you're advocating that programmers be hired based on resume, references, and a conversation about prior projects? I'm not sure I agree with this. It seems you'd be selecting for ability to present yourself as a good programmer over actually being a good programmer. What is your objection to attempting to verify someone's programming skill directly? It's certainly not an easy thing to do, but it doesn't seem apparent to me that it's impossible or not worthwhile. If the standard "whiteboard algorithmic brainteaser" is not a high quality signal (which I'm not sure I grant, Google seems to think it is, and they claim to have the data to back it up, though they're probably much, much more false-negative tolerant than most), it seems like there's plenty of dials to twist to try and increase the signal-to-noise and cost/benefit. a) Length of interview (one hour? full day? trial run of several weeks?) b) Topic (algorithmic vs. brainteaser vs. some attempt to simulate the "real world" to some level of fidelity?) c) Interface (Whiteboard vs. on computer vs. something else?) (I'm being a little disingenuous with the whiteboard vs. computer thing. I don't get the value of writing on a whiteboard. I'm kinda hoping someone might be able to elucidate that.) There's probably not a one-size-fits-all. Depends on your tolerance for risk, how senior you're trying to hire, how tight the job market is, etc. But I really would hesitate to work at a place that just took people's word on their programming ability.

theli0nheart 10y ago
> But I really would hesitate to work at a place that just took people's word on their programming ability. This is how I've hired for every open position in my company. You'd be amazed how easy it is to weed people out based on a conversation. It's very rare that someone can talk the talk without actually knowing what they're doing. There are too many obscure concepts and it gets clear really quickly if someone is bullshitting or has no idea what they're talking about.
- mixmastamyk 10y ago
  …and even if you get a bad apple it is simple enough to let them go in a week or two. If you are really hiring, your recruiting process should be running continuously so the loss is not fatal.
vonmoltke 10y ago
> So, to clarify, you're advocating that programmers be hired based on resume, references, and a conversation about prior projects? I think he is, considering this is the way every other engineering discipline does it. Please don;t fall back on the licensure issue, either. The vast majority of engineers in industry are not and do not need to be licensed. They still get interviewed this way.

by akavi 10y ago

theli0nheart 10y ago

> But I really would hesitate to work at a place that just took people's word on their programming ability. This is how I've hired for every open position in my company. You'd be amazed how easy it is to weed people out based on a conversation. It's very rare that someone can talk the talk without actually knowing what they're doing. There are too many obscure concepts and it gets clear really quickly if someone is bullshitting or has no idea what they're talking about.

mixmastamyk 10y ago
…and even if you get a bad apple it is simple enough to let them go in a week or two. If you are really hiring, your recruiting process should be running continuously so the loss is not fatal.

vonmoltke 10y ago

> So, to clarify, you're advocating that programmers be hired based on resume, references, and a conversation about prior projects? I think he is, considering this is the way every other engineering discipline does it. Please don;t fall back on the licensure issue, either. The vast majority of engineers in industry are not and do not need to be licensed. They still get interviewed this way.