3 ms·

> A 5% bomb rate for an on-site question will put you into the 60-70% pass rate. I'm not sure I follow the math here, can you expand a little?

by jfasi 8y ago

kjeetgill 8y ago
I just punched .95^10 (.59) and .95^6 (.73) into Google. I mean they're made up numbers, the point I was trying to get at was that you can do fairly well on these things but you just need to fail one question to fail in total. But if you do even two interviews your chance at getting one offer jumps to 1-.4^2 thru 1-.3^2 (84-91%). (Am I out of practice? Did I do that wrong?) -- I tapped out painful on my phone.
- jfasi 8y ago
  I suppose the math checks out, but I disagree with the model: the whole point of doing multiple interviews is to get a variety of opinions based on the knowledge that bombing an interview just happens. You're assuming that bombing one disqualifies you, but that's not true.
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    Yea, sure? I sorta agree and disagree but it's a little beside the point. My point was addressing the frustration with whiteboard interviews. It sucks to feel qualified and still get rejected. That doesn't necessarily mean they all way outclass you (they might!). If you treat interviewing like applying to colleges (3 or 4 big schools, a few backups) you're going to be a lot less burned by the system. Sure, hate the system. But we've covered blaming the interviews. But that's not helping anyone right now. As to the model, in my experience if you do sufficiently poorly on one and leave any doubt on another no one interview will save you. Sure you could add in the probability of failing two vs one. But that's numerically the same as just making that .95 a .9. It's a made up number, so what. The conclusion is kinda the same: doing pretty well can still lead to a failure for any given job, but you can still do pretty well in your job hunt.

3 ms·

> A 5% bomb rate for an on-site question will put you into the 60-70% pass rate. I'm not sure I follow the math here, can you expand a little?

by jfasi 8y ago

> A 5% bomb rate for an on-site question will put you into the 60-70% pass rate. I'm not sure I follow the math here, can you expand a little?

kjeetgill 8y ago
I just punched .95^10 (.59) and .95^6 (.73) into Google. I mean they're made up numbers, the point I was trying to get at was that you can do fairly well on these things but you just need to fail one question to fail in total. But if you do even two interviews your chance at getting one offer jumps to 1-.4^2 thru 1-.3^2 (84-91%). (Am I out of practice? Did I do that wrong?) -- I tapped out painful on my phone.
- jfasi 8y ago
  I suppose the math checks out, but I disagree with the model: the whole point of doing multiple interviews is to get a variety of opinions based on the knowledge that bombing an interview just happens. You're assuming that bombing one disqualifies you, but that's not true.
  - kjeetgill 8y ago
    Yea, sure? I sorta agree and disagree but it's a little beside the point. My point was addressing the frustration with whiteboard interviews. It sucks to feel qualified and still get rejected. That doesn't necessarily mean they all way outclass you (they might!). If you treat interviewing like applying to colleges (3 or 4 big schools, a few backups) you're going to be a lot less burned by the system. Sure, hate the system. But we've covered blaming the interviews. But that's not helping anyone right now. As to the model, in my experience if you do sufficiently poorly on one and leave any doubt on another no one interview will save you. Sure you could add in the probability of failing two vs one. But that's numerically the same as just making that .95 a .9. It's a made up number, so what. The conclusion is kinda the same: doing pretty well can still lead to a failure for any given job, but you can still do pretty well in your job hunt.