18 ms·

Each time I read a post like this I say to myself “they’re not wrong, but something is also missing.” If there was a way to evaluate a candidate based on how w

Each time I read a post like this I say to myself “they’re not wrong, but something is also missing.” If there was a way to evaluate a candidate based on how well they would do at their actual job, in an hour or less, that couldn’t be games or cheated, we’d all be using it. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t work on improving the hiring process, but how much time, both from the perspective of the candidate and the company, is too much time to invest in a potential hire? Would we get better signal if you came to work for us for a week and paired with everyone on the team? Sure! But how many candidates can take a week off from their current job? The author talked to 11 companies. Could they invest 11+ weeks in their job search full time in order to find their next role? What about the loss in productivity? Can you have more than one candidate in the office in a given week? What if your ramp up time for full time employees is actually longer than a week? Are you biasing for people who ramp up fast instead of people who will be ultimately more productive and impactful? I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job, but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire. Or they get rejected and blame the process or those alternative skills. I’ve felt the same way and wanted the system to be better tailored for my skill set, but balanced against the time investment for some alternatives, I see why we have the process we do.

rlpb 9y ago
> I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job... The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that almost certainly, some non-zero proportion engineers who have written this type of posts are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
- custos 9y ago
  While what you're saying is true, I think the dunning kruger effect has an inverse bell curve based on level of confidence vs knowledge. High confidence low knowledge. Moderate confidance moderate knowledge High confidence high knowledge. Of course that only applies to the things the expert knows like the back of his hand. There are things I am 100% confident I know, because I've done it thousands of times. Then there are some advanced things I still question if I truly understand because I've only successfully done it a few times. Of course when I was younger, the things I'm 100% confident now I went through the phase of "oh I can do this super easy" to "holy crap this is harder than I thought" to "I've done this 1000's of times, I got this"
  - rlpb 9y ago
    > There are things I am 100% confident I know, because I've done it thousands of times. If you've done thousands of job interviews (for example), does that make you an expert at job interviews? Or a terrible candidate? Now: how many people who pass every job interview immediately subsequently write an article about questions to ask at a job interview?
- dahart 9y ago
  Dunning Kruger is only valid for simple tasks. The study tested, for example, whether participants get a joke. The participants, btw, were all Cornell undergrads, NOT the general population. The "Dunning Kruger effect" actually reverses and there's a negative correlation for highly skilled and highly knowledge-based tasks like "engineering". http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k.. http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k.... "...some studies have shown that the asymmetry reported by Kruger and Dunning (i.e., the smaller discrepancy for high performers than for low performers) actually goes away, and even reverses, when the ability tests given to participants are very difficult." So please don't treat Dunning Kruger as a way to claim anyone who's wrong or you disagree with is suffering from inflated confidence and lack of skill. Do note the potential for confirmation bias as well as inflated confidence in the very claim that others might be prone.
- ksk 9y ago
  >The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that almost certainly, some non-zero proportion engineers who have written this type of posts are not. The effect can't suggest anything, you would have to test your own hypothesis on your own sample set of people writing those posts. Extrapolating from other studies on other sample sets used for completely different inquires is bad science.
crdoconnor 9y ago
There is. Take a set of realistic, representative tasks from your day to day work, decouple it from the context as much as possible to limit the need company specific services, software or knowledge while performing the task. There's a few reasons this is rare: * Setting up a test like this requires prep work, whereas a chat, recycling old tests and downloading questions from the internet does not. * It's rare for hirers to evaluate or be evaluated on their own hiring process. * Lots of developers want to cargo cult Google's hiring process so they ask you to whiteboard algorithms.
- richmarr 9y ago
  Absolutely. I'm not going to name or link, but this is a service we've started providing and have a growing library of assessment techniques (and analytics on the effectiveness of those techniques). This reduces the prep-work required. The aim is to get to the point where you can say, e.g. "I need a Finance Director for an SME" and we can pre-populate a set of sensible defaults for you to tweak if desired. Baby steps though.. Once we build out those reports we'll also be able to report back to senior management on hiring manager performance. Metrics like typical time-to-hire & volumes etc. but also whether there's unusual demographic bias, the satisfaction of rejected candidates, and some others. I'd also like to make those metrics public (companies would have to opt-in).
- brango 9y ago
  This is what we do. We created a small programming test that's very representative of 80% of our work. Candidates are asked to only spend 2 hours on it. If they can follow simple instructions and write a reasonable implementation we'll have a face-to-face. This saves us a huge amount of time and I don't feel it's overly burdensome on candidates.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >I don't feel it's overly burdensome on candidates. I do. After doing a couple of these "2 hour" projects from companies I have a suspicion were not even really serious about hiring and not even receiving a courtesy rejection email I swore off them forever. These days I just point the company to my github and am explicit that if that isn't enough to grant me a face to face I probably don't want to work there.
lr4444lr 9y ago
I agree, and I'm not sure what these kinds of posts are trying to accomplish, because they're speaking from hindsight and ignore with many other counterfactual possibilities that don't happen to support their point. Every alternative I've seen proposed to FizzBuzz and Whiteboard style tactics is flawed or self-selecting in its own way, and often come at a higher cost to one or both of the interviewee or the company as the candidate pool grows. Cultural fit getting a lot of flack these days for reinforcing unconscious bias is hardly proven fact, but even if it were, it would not be too hard to identify and reach consensus beforehand on what the team lacks, e.g. someone who is a testing fanatic, a security wizard, a deep dive experimentalist, etc. and to instruct all interviewers on how to spot those needed elements.
- richmarr 9y ago
  > Cultural fit getting a lot of flack these days for reinforcing unconscious bias is hardly proven fact Talking about things as a "proven fact" (or not) is not a helpful mental model. It's an impossibly high burden of proof that would mean we never learn anything. All we will ever have is a bundle of findings from studies with finite funding and various shortcomings. Right now we have a fair number of studies that found statistically significant increases in productivity from more diverse teams, and (to my knowledge) none showing the reverse. Perhaps there are some but they weren't published. Is this a conclusive law of nature? No. Does it seem probable on balance that the types of situations studied experienced the effects reported? Yes. It's also not useful to talk generally about "cultural fit" because it's broad enough to be essentially meaningless. Companies that hire for "fit" well do so by unpacking exactly what behaviours they're looking for; entrepreneurialism, directness, risk taking, etc. and finding ways to assess those qualities. If folks want to hire people they want to drink beer with, that's their choice, but failing to unpack the components of culture fit means that their choice is uninformed and unmeasured.
  - hueving 9y ago
    It would be nice if you could link to some of the key studies in this area. Just because there were a few flawed studies is hardly a reason to take it as actionable information. Has it even been determined that diversity leads to productivity or is it just that diversity is a result of the same thing the productivity is?
grue2 9y ago
I use a work sample (short paid contract), but it's not perfect and boy is it labor intensive. As a hirer, you really can't win. There's not one hiring process nor guiding principle that doesn't seem to bring out the pitchforks of those who were frustrated, disrespected, or rejected by said process: - Show us your open source work. (You're excluding all but a lucky few who have the privilege of writing open source code!) - Okay then, show us a personal project or some work you've done in your free time. (What, so I'm expected to live eat and breathe code 24/7 to get hired?!) - Well, how about a short contract/work sample? (How am I supposed to find the time to do that? I have a day job and a life!) - Shall we try whiteboarding/coding tests then? (This is so insulting! Solving CS puzzles isn't what the job is about!) One cannot, sadly, rely on the résumé. I have interviewed multiple self-deemed "experts" in such-and-such language, only to find that they could not even write a basic for-loop on the whiteboard.
- 8ytecoder 9y ago
  This! We have tried all the points listed there and at least one person has found fault with that. That said, we follow pretty much the order you listed. The people invested in their job search do respond.
- custos 9y ago
  Best company I've been hired at did a sample project. They had the project all setup and ready to go. All I had to do was fill in some of the more complicated bits (hooking up to the database using LINQ to SQL, and implement some queries to search by name/album and two or three other fields). Then display them in a certain order. I was given an hour to do it. Apparently, after I was hired, I was told I was the only one they interviewed that could do it. Ironic part was I'd never used LINQ to SQL before and had studied it the night prior. (It was on the job posting)
  - taco_emoji 9y ago
    Was it marked as a requirement by the job posting? Because if not, that's just a test of knowledge, not ability.
logicallee 9y ago
>If there was a way to evaluate a candidate based on how well they would do at their actual job, in an hour or less, that couldn’t be gamed or cheated, we’d all be using it. Right, because there's currently a ten million dollar bounty up at way-to-evaluate-a-candidate-based-on-how-well-they-would-do-at-their-actual-job-in-an-hour-or-less-that-cant-be-gamed-or-cheated-bounty .com - which everyone knows about and has known about for decades, and checks regularly. The site can't be gamed and it's run as a public service. Literally within a day, and I mean a day, that anyone ever uses the winning method a single time, God himself will write up the method and submit it on the interviewer's behalf (invisible hand hypothesis), the site will judge it correctly and approve it (just world hypothesis), and the next day we'd all be using it. Oh also there's a genie that makes people use the winning entry I forgot to mention that, otherwise people might not all use it even once it's well-known. I mean just consider the wildly implausible set of circumstances it would take for not everyone in the world to be using the best interview process in the world! It's clear that it just doesn't exist. How could it? /s - Edit: someone didn't like this. Just imagine what method you suppose by which everyone would learn the perfect interview method from each other. If that method exists, why would everyone know it?
bootsz 9y ago
> I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job, but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire. It does feel silly. But sadly it's often the way the world works. Standardized tests carry many of the same problems and benefits. Getting a perfect SAT score doesn't really speak to your level of intelligence as much as it speaks to your ability to dedicate lots of time and focused energy toward preparing for an arbitrary system of evaluation... which turns out to correlate somewhat well with being successful in school. There are few false positives but many false-negatives, just like with whiteboard-style coding interviews. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. What bothers me more than anything is that people either don't realize this distinction, or aren't honest about it. I was once rejected from a "big four" company after a whiteboarding on-site, and I was advised by the recruiter to "spend a year working somewhere with a very large codebase" and try again... As if that would contribute anything toward my ability to pass a whiteboarding interview. We all know the real way to pass whiteboarding interviews is to practice whiteboarding interview problems. A lot. I've been working as a software engineer on "very large codebases" for a while now and can confirm that I am no better prepared to pass that interview.
- rf15 9y ago
  I remember reading another story on HN this morning from someone who applied to the big four (well, five) and got accepted by all of them. How they did it? By optimising solely for the hiring process and little else. And, to be honest, I wouldn't hire this person - they are so focused on optimising towards the METRICS that they ignore what abstract goals the metrics are trying to measure. And that can easily come back to bite you as an employer; you can even see this behaviour if you look at what weirdness ML systems can optimise towards without the right constraints. It's a natural and easy way to do things, but it probably doesn't make good developers.
  - rafiki6 9y ago
    I quite disagree. This to me is a rather capable individual I'd hire simply because they are a good adaptive problem solver. Problem: Stupid interviews. Solution: game the system to get what that person wants, a job.
JamesBarney 9y ago
> but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire The problem isn't that they have to develop a set of skills that combined with their true skills gives the interviewer a glimpse into their abilities. It's that it's an entirely different set of skills entirely. We might as well be asking people to learn woodworking in order to showcase their software skills. The ability to sound knowledgeable and make someone like you in 50 minutes is pretty orthogonal to writing good code as a member of a team.
- bootsz 9y ago
  > it's an entirely different set of skills entirely I'm not sure whiteboarding-style interviews are entirely orthogonal. They are definitely not a measure of real software engineering ability, but I suspect there is decent correlation, enough to give companies a sufficiently low false-positive rate, which is what they care about. The flip side is you have a high amount of false-negatives, and it sucks to be one of the people who end up in that category, because you know you're good enough but you just didn't pass the arbitrary filter that requires that "entirely different set of skills". I've been there, as I suspect most of us have. It's not fun, but it's hard to see what would motivate these companies to change their practices as long as they feel their false-positive rate is low enough.
  - JamesBarney 9y ago
    A standardized white-boarding interview is probably not completely orthogonal. But too many white board interviews don't have a standardized set of questions, with a standardized set of criteria over which to measure them. And the ad-hoc tests have very little validity, and rely more on what questions the interview asks, and how confident and charming the interviewee is. Not to mention lots of credentialism. "Candidate Joe didn't answer the question but he's a Googler so that I probably just because I did a bad job explaining that." "Jessica didn't answer the question because she didn't know anything about software".

rlpb 9y ago

> I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job... The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that almost certainly, some non-zero proportion engineers who have written this type of posts are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

custos 9y ago
While what you're saying is true, I think the dunning kruger effect has an inverse bell curve based on level of confidence vs knowledge. High confidence low knowledge. Moderate confidance moderate knowledge High confidence high knowledge. Of course that only applies to the things the expert knows like the back of his hand. There are things I am 100% confident I know, because I've done it thousands of times. Then there are some advanced things I still question if I truly understand because I've only successfully done it a few times. Of course when I was younger, the things I'm 100% confident now I went through the phase of "oh I can do this super easy" to "holy crap this is harder than I thought" to "I've done this 1000's of times, I got this"
- rlpb 9y ago
  > There are things I am 100% confident I know, because I've done it thousands of times. If you've done thousands of job interviews (for example), does that make you an expert at job interviews? Or a terrible candidate? Now: how many people who pass every job interview immediately subsequently write an article about questions to ask at a job interview?
dahart 9y ago
Dunning Kruger is only valid for simple tasks. The study tested, for example, whether participants get a joke. The participants, btw, were all Cornell undergrads, NOT the general population. The "Dunning Kruger effect" actually reverses and there's a negative correlation for highly skilled and highly knowledge-based tasks like "engineering". http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k.. http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k.... "...some studies have shown that the asymmetry reported by Kruger and Dunning (i.e., the smaller discrepancy for high performers than for low performers) actually goes away, and even reverses, when the ability tests given to participants are very difficult." So please don't treat Dunning Kruger as a way to claim anyone who's wrong or you disagree with is suffering from inflated confidence and lack of skill. Do note the potential for confirmation bias as well as inflated confidence in the very claim that others might be prone.
ksk 9y ago
>The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that almost certainly, some non-zero proportion engineers who have written this type of posts are not. The effect can't suggest anything, you would have to test your own hypothesis on your own sample set of people writing those posts. Extrapolating from other studies on other sample sets used for completely different inquires is bad science.

crdoconnor 9y ago

There is. Take a set of realistic, representative tasks from your day to day work, decouple it from the context as much as possible to limit the need company specific services, software or knowledge while performing the task. There's a few reasons this is rare: * Setting up a test like this requires prep work, whereas a chat, recycling old tests and downloading questions from the internet does not. * It's rare for hirers to evaluate or be evaluated on their own hiring process. * Lots of developers want to cargo cult Google's hiring process so they ask you to whiteboard algorithms.

richmarr 9y ago
Absolutely. I'm not going to name or link, but this is a service we've started providing and have a growing library of assessment techniques (and analytics on the effectiveness of those techniques). This reduces the prep-work required. The aim is to get to the point where you can say, e.g. "I need a Finance Director for an SME" and we can pre-populate a set of sensible defaults for you to tweak if desired. Baby steps though.. Once we build out those reports we'll also be able to report back to senior management on hiring manager performance. Metrics like typical time-to-hire & volumes etc. but also whether there's unusual demographic bias, the satisfaction of rejected candidates, and some others. I'd also like to make those metrics public (companies would have to opt-in).
brango 9y ago
This is what we do. We created a small programming test that's very representative of 80% of our work. Candidates are asked to only spend 2 hours on it. If they can follow simple instructions and write a reasonable implementation we'll have a face-to-face. This saves us a huge amount of time and I don't feel it's overly burdensome on candidates.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >I don't feel it's overly burdensome on candidates. I do. After doing a couple of these "2 hour" projects from companies I have a suspicion were not even really serious about hiring and not even receiving a courtesy rejection email I swore off them forever. These days I just point the company to my github and am explicit that if that isn't enough to grant me a face to face I probably don't want to work there.

lr4444lr 9y ago

I agree, and I'm not sure what these kinds of posts are trying to accomplish, because they're speaking from hindsight and ignore with many other counterfactual possibilities that don't happen to support their point. Every alternative I've seen proposed to FizzBuzz and Whiteboard style tactics is flawed or self-selecting in its own way, and often come at a higher cost to one or both of the interviewee or the company as the candidate pool grows. Cultural fit getting a lot of flack these days for reinforcing unconscious bias is hardly proven fact, but even if it were, it would not be too hard to identify and reach consensus beforehand on what the team lacks, e.g. someone who is a testing fanatic, a security wizard, a deep dive experimentalist, etc. and to instruct all interviewers on how to spot those needed elements.

richmarr 9y ago
> Cultural fit getting a lot of flack these days for reinforcing unconscious bias is hardly proven fact Talking about things as a "proven fact" (or not) is not a helpful mental model. It's an impossibly high burden of proof that would mean we never learn anything. All we will ever have is a bundle of findings from studies with finite funding and various shortcomings. Right now we have a fair number of studies that found statistically significant increases in productivity from more diverse teams, and (to my knowledge) none showing the reverse. Perhaps there are some but they weren't published. Is this a conclusive law of nature? No. Does it seem probable on balance that the types of situations studied experienced the effects reported? Yes. It's also not useful to talk generally about "cultural fit" because it's broad enough to be essentially meaningless. Companies that hire for "fit" well do so by unpacking exactly what behaviours they're looking for; entrepreneurialism, directness, risk taking, etc. and finding ways to assess those qualities. If folks want to hire people they want to drink beer with, that's their choice, but failing to unpack the components of culture fit means that their choice is uninformed and unmeasured.
- hueving 9y ago
  It would be nice if you could link to some of the key studies in this area. Just because there were a few flawed studies is hardly a reason to take it as actionable information. Has it even been determined that diversity leads to productivity or is it just that diversity is a result of the same thing the productivity is?

grue2 9y ago

I use a work sample (short paid contract), but it's not perfect and boy is it labor intensive. As a hirer, you really can't win. There's not one hiring process nor guiding principle that doesn't seem to bring out the pitchforks of those who were frustrated, disrespected, or rejected by said process: - Show us your open source work. (You're excluding all but a lucky few who have the privilege of writing open source code!) - Okay then, show us a personal project or some work you've done in your free time. (What, so I'm expected to live eat and breathe code 24/7 to get hired?!) - Well, how about a short contract/work sample? (How am I supposed to find the time to do that? I have a day job and a life!) - Shall we try whiteboarding/coding tests then? (This is so insulting! Solving CS puzzles isn't what the job is about!) One cannot, sadly, rely on the résumé. I have interviewed multiple self-deemed "experts" in such-and-such language, only to find that they could not even write a basic for-loop on the whiteboard.

8ytecoder 9y ago
This! We have tried all the points listed there and at least one person has found fault with that. That said, we follow pretty much the order you listed. The people invested in their job search do respond.
custos 9y ago
Best company I've been hired at did a sample project. They had the project all setup and ready to go. All I had to do was fill in some of the more complicated bits (hooking up to the database using LINQ to SQL, and implement some queries to search by name/album and two or three other fields). Then display them in a certain order. I was given an hour to do it. Apparently, after I was hired, I was told I was the only one they interviewed that could do it. Ironic part was I'd never used LINQ to SQL before and had studied it the night prior. (It was on the job posting)
- taco_emoji 9y ago
  Was it marked as a requirement by the job posting? Because if not, that's just a test of knowledge, not ability.

logicallee 9y ago

>If there was a way to evaluate a candidate based on how well they would do at their actual job, in an hour or less, that couldn’t be gamed or cheated, we’d all be using it. Right, because there's currently a ten million dollar bounty up at way-to-evaluate-a-candidate-based-on-how-well-they-would-do-at-their-actual-job-in-an-hour-or-less-that-cant-be-gamed-or-cheated-bounty .com - which everyone knows about and has known about for decades, and checks regularly. The site can't be gamed and it's run as a public service. Literally within a day, and I mean a day, that anyone ever uses the winning method a single time, God himself will write up the method and submit it on the interviewer's behalf (invisible hand hypothesis), the site will judge it correctly and approve it (just world hypothesis), and the next day we'd all be using it. Oh also there's a genie that makes people use the winning entry I forgot to mention that, otherwise people might not all use it even once it's well-known. I mean just consider the wildly implausible set of circumstances it would take for not everyone in the world to be using the best interview process in the world! It's clear that it just doesn't exist. How could it? /s - Edit: someone didn't like this. Just imagine what method you suppose by which everyone would learn the perfect interview method from each other. If that method exists, why would everyone know it?

bootsz 9y ago

> I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job, but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire. It does feel silly. But sadly it's often the way the world works. Standardized tests carry many of the same problems and benefits. Getting a perfect SAT score doesn't really speak to your level of intelligence as much as it speaks to your ability to dedicate lots of time and focused energy toward preparing for an arbitrary system of evaluation... which turns out to correlate somewhat well with being successful in school. There are few false positives but many false-negatives, just like with whiteboard-style coding interviews. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. What bothers me more than anything is that people either don't realize this distinction, or aren't honest about it. I was once rejected from a "big four" company after a whiteboarding on-site, and I was advised by the recruiter to "spend a year working somewhere with a very large codebase" and try again... As if that would contribute anything toward my ability to pass a whiteboarding interview. We all know the real way to pass whiteboarding interviews is to practice whiteboarding interview problems. A lot. I've been working as a software engineer on "very large codebases" for a while now and can confirm that I am no better prepared to pass that interview.

rf15 9y ago
I remember reading another story on HN this morning from someone who applied to the big four (well, five) and got accepted by all of them. How they did it? By optimising solely for the hiring process and little else. And, to be honest, I wouldn't hire this person - they are so focused on optimising towards the METRICS that they ignore what abstract goals the metrics are trying to measure. And that can easily come back to bite you as an employer; you can even see this behaviour if you look at what weirdness ML systems can optimise towards without the right constraints. It's a natural and easy way to do things, but it probably doesn't make good developers.
- rafiki6 9y ago
  I quite disagree. This to me is a rather capable individual I'd hire simply because they are a good adaptive problem solver. Problem: Stupid interviews. Solution: game the system to get what that person wants, a job.

JamesBarney 9y ago

> but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire The problem isn't that they have to develop a set of skills that combined with their true skills gives the interviewer a glimpse into their abilities. It's that it's an entirely different set of skills entirely. We might as well be asking people to learn woodworking in order to showcase their software skills. The ability to sound knowledgeable and make someone like you in 50 minutes is pretty orthogonal to writing good code as a member of a team.

bootsz 9y ago
> it's an entirely different set of skills entirely I'm not sure whiteboarding-style interviews are entirely orthogonal. They are definitely not a measure of real software engineering ability, but I suspect there is decent correlation, enough to give companies a sufficiently low false-positive rate, which is what they care about. The flip side is you have a high amount of false-negatives, and it sucks to be one of the people who end up in that category, because you know you're good enough but you just didn't pass the arbitrary filter that requires that "entirely different set of skills". I've been there, as I suspect most of us have. It's not fun, but it's hard to see what would motivate these companies to change their practices as long as they feel their false-positive rate is low enough.
- JamesBarney 9y ago
  A standardized white-boarding interview is probably not completely orthogonal. But too many white board interviews don't have a standardized set of questions, with a standardized set of criteria over which to measure them. And the ad-hoc tests have very little validity, and rely more on what questions the interview asks, and how confident and charming the interviewee is. Not to mention lots of credentialism. "Candidate Joe didn't answer the question but he's a Googler so that I probably just because I did a bad job explaining that." "Jessica didn't answer the question because she didn't know anything about software".