5 ms·
>> >Either way, it’s very common for a candidate to get rejected and then get an offer a year or two later. What OP implies is that the interview process is ou
by NTDF9 9y ago
>> >Either way, it’s very common for a candidate to get rejected and then get an offer a year or two later.
What OP implies is that the interview process is out of candidate's control and there are many variables in play.
What the OP doesn't realize is that this is the definition of a shitty process.
What would you call a piece of software that cannot reliably produce the same output most of the time?
vs
What would you call an interview process that cannot hire the same people most of the time?
- theoh 9y agoI don't know about SV interviews, but there are ways of quantifying this kind of unreliability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rater_reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rater_reliability
- NTDF9 9y agoQuantifying assumes that the "raters" remain the same forever. That's not true though. Raters change. Counter intuitively, as the rater gets more and more familiar with the problem, the less tolerance they have for mistakes.
- theoh 9y agoI don't know where you got the idea that quantifying something fixes it for all time. Numbers can change. Measures of inter-rater reliability can be applied to multiple ratings over time by the same person (why not?)
- gaylemcd 9y agoOP here. I do absolutely realize that candidates getting rejected and then getting an offer later is... well, not quite the "definition", but it's a sign of a flaws in a process. However, you don't scrap the buggy program if there's not a better replacement; you fix the program. And you don't scrap this interview process if the alternatives are even worse.
- TulliusCicero 9y agoWhat an absurd chain of logic. Interviews are conducted by human beings, of course their reproducibility sucks. It's not like non-whiteboarding interviews are going to be great at that either. You could replace them by software, ala "here's a coding problem with a set of unit and integration tests to validate against, go nuts" but that would have its own set of issues.