4 ms·

Because proper evaluation takes time and a bad choice carries a huge cost. In the absence of any objective measures, an employer gets around this by just hiring

by knzhou 7y ago

Because proper evaluation takes time and a bad choice carries a huge cost. In the absence of any objective measures, an employer gets around this by just hiring the son of the guy they golf with. Connections. Sports works, but only because sports are extremely popular, with tens of millions of people enthusiastically participating on a regular basis, and accessible to anybody no matter their age and income. This is not true for, say, working at a law firm. You can’t take the best clerk from a pool of a thousand kids who have been clerking since elementary school. It’s either who you know, or who got good grades and test scores.

rglullis 7y ago
> In the absence of any objective measures One would argue that this is the current status. How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146? How my grades in Computer Engineering can be used to predict my performance as an Engineer in a country where 85% of the graduates would work in non-technical and more profitable fields? If a company looking for a Quant gets someone with a Master in Math and a good tracking record knocking on their door, would they stop and ask to see if they can get someone with a PhD instead? You are right that "proper evaluation takes time". What I am saying is that standardized tests should not count as proper evaluation.
- knzhou 7y ago
  Again, the alternative to standardized tests and credentials is hiring based on connections, ethnicity, pedigree, physical appearance, and superficial confidence. These problems are exactly why meritocracy was invented in the first place. The alternative is not everybody getting the jobs they want, it's you being turned away without any consideration at all because the boss already hired their cousin. > How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146? You can't take two proper WAIS-IV tests in two hours. In fact, unless you have been part of an unusual psychology study, you've probably never taken a real IQ test in your life. There are a lot of gimmicky free things on the internet that call themselves IQ tests but aren't predictive of anything.
  - rglullis 7y ago
    You are moving the goal posts. I was talking only about standardized tests, and now you are also including credentials on the mix. As for the IQ test - it wasn't online and it wasn't a study, as far as I know - but I can totally concede that it was not a "real" IQ test. Anyway, the story happened over 20 years ago. Part of the driving exam in Brazil included a "neuro-psychological evaluation" and the doctor flagged me for some extra tests. From what I remember I went to the clinic the next week, did one test, did the "neuro-technical" exam and was told to wait for an IQ test. When I got the form, it was the same as I got before originally (different order of questions) Long story short I asked why I was re-taking the test and I thought I "failed" somehow. They actually said they were not aware of the first one and later on found it. Now that I think about it, perhaps it was some weird psychology test? :)

by knzhou 7y ago

rglullis 7y ago

> In the absence of any objective measures One would argue that this is the current status. How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146? How my grades in Computer Engineering can be used to predict my performance as an Engineer in a country where 85% of the graduates would work in non-technical and more profitable fields? If a company looking for a Quant gets someone with a Master in Math and a good tracking record knocking on their door, would they stop and ask to see if they can get someone with a PhD instead? You are right that "proper evaluation takes time". What I am saying is that standardized tests should not count as proper evaluation.

knzhou 7y ago
Again, the alternative to standardized tests and credentials is hiring based on connections, ethnicity, pedigree, physical appearance, and superficial confidence. These problems are exactly why meritocracy was invented in the first place. The alternative is not everybody getting the jobs they want, it's you being turned away without any consideration at all because the boss already hired their cousin. > How objective are, e.g, IQ tests when I can take two different tests in a span of two hours and get from 128 to 146? You can't take two proper WAIS-IV tests in two hours. In fact, unless you have been part of an unusual psychology study, you've probably never taken a real IQ test in your life. There are a lot of gimmicky free things on the internet that call themselves IQ tests but aren't predictive of anything.
- rglullis 7y ago
  You are moving the goal posts. I was talking only about standardized tests, and now you are also including credentials on the mix. As for the IQ test - it wasn't online and it wasn't a study, as far as I know - but I can totally concede that it was not a "real" IQ test. Anyway, the story happened over 20 years ago. Part of the driving exam in Brazil included a "neuro-psychological evaluation" and the doctor flagged me for some extra tests. From what I remember I went to the clinic the next week, did one test, did the "neuro-technical" exam and was told to wait for an IQ test. When I got the form, it was the same as I got before originally (different order of questions) Long story short I asked why I was re-taking the test and I thought I "failed" somehow. They actually said they were not aware of the first one and later on found it. Now that I think about it, perhaps it was some weird psychology test? :)