4 ms·

Part of the problem here is that I think we, in tech, have really forgotten how stressful it is to be given a technical exam at a whiteboard, especially with an

by geebee 10y ago

Part of the problem here is that I think we, in tech, have really forgotten how stressful it is to be given a technical exam at a whiteboard, especially with an undercurrent of finding charlatans who "can't even do basic programming!" Many people from other professions and graduate programs describe their oral exams as among the most stressful academic experiences they've been through, because it's unusually embarrassing to fail publicly and people are afraid of "freezing". And that's when there's a pretty clear and well publicized study route, with an ostensibly consistently graded exam, with professors and/or industry practitioners who are experts in their field, with feedback and mechanisms to ensure fairness and integrity. We get all the stress, but none of the protections, in tech. And we never really get to stop doing it. I've been through the washing machine enough times that I am pretty resistant to it, though it does still get to me as well. Early career, I did feel pretty humiliated after some of these experiences. Sometimes, I think we lose sight of this. When I described what it was like to "interview" at google and other places, people outside tech kind of shuddered. Their interviews are more like conversations - yes, you need to know what you're talking about, but you don't stand in front of a committee, at a whiteboard, getting treated like a grad student going through quals (if only!) every single time you interview at a new company! I've heard some questions about whether this is just an inevitable part of being a programmer. If it is, fine, but then please, let's stop scratching our heads about why there's a supposed "shortage" of programmers. If an extremely unpleasant quasi-hazing is a necessary part of applying for a developer job (every single time), then let's not be surprised when people decide they don't want to work in this field anymore, don't want to enter it in the first place, are reluctant to change jobs, or, alternatively, prefer careers in actuarial work, law, medicine, nursing, or other fields where they get to take their exams under conditions that are far more respectful of the candidate and result in a lasting, meaningful credential, respected in their field, so they don't have to do it over and over.

scsilver 10y ago
Further more, we have legal protections for those with disabilities when taking these certifications that is not accounted for in the tech sector. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/disabilityrights/resources/biad.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/disabilityrights/resources... http://ncees.org/exams/special-accommodations/ada-exam-accommodations/ http://ncees.org/exams/special-accommodations/ada-exam-accom... http://www.usmle.org/test-accommodations/ http://www.usmle.org/test-accommodations/ Are we ok with allowing discrimination like this to continue?
- geebee 10y ago
  Interesting observation about the legal protections you mentioned. While it's just one case, I think this is illustrative of how seriously certification, licensing, and other exams are taken in the rest of the world. Exams can be useful and perhaps even essential, but they aren't trivial. It's a big deal to put someone through this. It is important to have safeguards to ensure fairness, integrity, and consistency. One of the reasons we don't have this in tech is that companies have no incentive to be transparent about their exams, because they fear lawsuits. They'd much rather reply "we've decided not to pursue your candidacy further at this time" than tell you specifically what you did wrong during their technical exams (they really aren't interviews, they are exams - calling them interviews just confuses people who aren't familiar with what goes on in tech). The thing is, these exams really are formal affairs. My understanding is that if you applied to google, there is a database entry somewhere with your name, screen captures of what you wrote at the whiteboard, notes on your performance, and a score. However, the person who has been through the tests have more or less no rights to any of this information. I suppose some people might say "well, that's their business, if you don't like it, don't apply." My response is, yeah, exactly. I believe tech culture turns off a huge number of people - these interview exams are a notable part of this, along with back visibility, open offices, micromanagement, and concerns about career longevity are other. I believe that people with choice, those who aren't obliged to work for a particular employer in a particular field as a condition of living in the US are choosing not to work in tech. There's a constant drum beat about this shortage, from a field that puts candidates through this constantly. I do think that tests without any protections for the examinee is one of many things tech may need to reconsider to attract people with choice into this field. I see no reason for government to get involved in helping tech get workers without while going about business as usual.

by geebee 10y ago

scsilver 10y ago

Further more, we have legal protections for those with disabilities when taking these certifications that is not accounted for in the tech sector. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/disabilityrights/resources/biad.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/disabilityrights/resources... http://ncees.org/exams/special-accommodations/ada-exam-accommodations/ http://ncees.org/exams/special-accommodations/ada-exam-accom... http://www.usmle.org/test-accommodations/ http://www.usmle.org/test-accommodations/ Are we ok with allowing discrimination like this to continue?

geebee 10y ago
Interesting observation about the legal protections you mentioned. While it's just one case, I think this is illustrative of how seriously certification, licensing, and other exams are taken in the rest of the world. Exams can be useful and perhaps even essential, but they aren't trivial. It's a big deal to put someone through this. It is important to have safeguards to ensure fairness, integrity, and consistency. One of the reasons we don't have this in tech is that companies have no incentive to be transparent about their exams, because they fear lawsuits. They'd much rather reply "we've decided not to pursue your candidacy further at this time" than tell you specifically what you did wrong during their technical exams (they really aren't interviews, they are exams - calling them interviews just confuses people who aren't familiar with what goes on in tech). The thing is, these exams really are formal affairs. My understanding is that if you applied to google, there is a database entry somewhere with your name, screen captures of what you wrote at the whiteboard, notes on your performance, and a score. However, the person who has been through the tests have more or less no rights to any of this information. I suppose some people might say "well, that's their business, if you don't like it, don't apply." My response is, yeah, exactly. I believe tech culture turns off a huge number of people - these interview exams are a notable part of this, along with back visibility, open offices, micromanagement, and concerns about career longevity are other. I believe that people with choice, those who aren't obliged to work for a particular employer in a particular field as a condition of living in the US are choosing not to work in tech. There's a constant drum beat about this shortage, from a field that puts candidates through this constantly. I do think that tests without any protections for the examinee is one of many things tech may need to reconsider to attract people with choice into this field. I see no reason for government to get involved in helping tech get workers without while going about business as usual.