3 ms·

But the company doesn’t really suffer if they don’t hire that disadvantaged developer who doesn’t have the resources to study for the test. Sure they have to sp

by anbop 7y ago

But the company doesn’t really suffer if they don’t hire that disadvantaged developer who doesn’t have the resources to study for the test. Sure they have to spend some more $$$ on recruiting but there aren’t a ton of companies in America existentially threatened by their inability to hire these hypothetical engineers.

Apocryphon 7y ago
You're stating that the company doesn't lose out with false negatives. That's certainly true with big FAANG companies. But I suppose in my original comment, and when I brought up Goodhart's law in a descendent comment, also suggests that by creating a system that can be gamed by prep, you end up creating a situation that encourages false positives. In the end, is a company of Leetcoder elites and new CS grads going to be a more productive company than one comprised of experienced and capable engineers who don't happen to do as well on those tests? Which I suppose is the question for a different study.
- x0x0 7y ago
  In my experience hiring, the diligence to sit down and practice code tests correlates very highly with being a good employee. Just like strong academic achievement at good schools. That's not to say there aren't gems in the rough who don't interview well, or skipped college, or who didn't go to good schools. But there's a huge time cost to looking for them.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Does it? Have you hired a lot of people via alternative route to have a valid comparison? Perhaps it is a cost because your hitting practices are explicitly biased against finding such people, or salary is not competitive? Time of HR guy doing the interview or a search is cheap compared to years of developer salary. Seriously.
- anbop 7y ago
  How much more money do you think Google or Facebook can make by improving their engineering recruiting?
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    Given that the former is dealing with decreased earnings growth and the latter is dealing with decreased user growth, perhaps all options should be explored.

by anbop 7y ago

Apocryphon 7y ago

You're stating that the company doesn't lose out with false negatives. That's certainly true with big FAANG companies. But I suppose in my original comment, and when I brought up Goodhart's law in a descendent comment, also suggests that by creating a system that can be gamed by prep, you end up creating a situation that encourages false positives. In the end, is a company of Leetcoder elites and new CS grads going to be a more productive company than one comprised of experienced and capable engineers who don't happen to do as well on those tests? Which I suppose is the question for a different study.

x0x0 7y ago
In my experience hiring, the diligence to sit down and practice code tests correlates very highly with being a good employee. Just like strong academic achievement at good schools. That's not to say there aren't gems in the rough who don't interview well, or skipped college, or who didn't go to good schools. But there's a huge time cost to looking for them.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Does it? Have you hired a lot of people via alternative route to have a valid comparison? Perhaps it is a cost because your hitting practices are explicitly biased against finding such people, or salary is not competitive? Time of HR guy doing the interview or a search is cheap compared to years of developer salary. Seriously.
anbop 7y ago
How much more money do you think Google or Facebook can make by improving their engineering recruiting?
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  Given that the former is dealing with decreased earnings growth and the latter is dealing with decreased user growth, perhaps all options should be explored.