3 ms·
but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious Yet, based on your previous comment, you think the person will be able to BS their way through a conversa
by ubernostrum 8y ago
but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious
Yet, based on your previous comment, you think the person will be able to BS their way through a conversation with you about code they didn't write and don't understand. I don't see how you can hold both of those positions simultaneously.
- paulcole 8y agoThe person who stands in and does the exercise also does the follow up call.
- ubernostrum 8y agoDo they also do the on-site interview? Look, I've done a lot of interviews as the interviewer. This attitude that we have to design processes as if there are five hundred quintillion octillions of googolplexes of novemdecillions of cheating lying "fake coders" for every one qualified person is not rooted in reality, nor is the level of paranoia you're displaying. There are perfectly reasonable processes you can use which will catch a cheater if you actually get one. But designing a process entirely around the assumption that everyone is a cheater trying to lie their way into your company is just not useful.