4 ms·
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 knowledg
by 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 agoYea, 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.