3 ms·
Something that strikes me in reading articles like this, is the distopian part often seems to be thinking about this: p(job_capable | not_interview_capable
by closed 7y ago
Something that strikes me in reading articles like this, is the distopian part often seems to be thinking about this:
p(job_capable | not_interview_capable)
That is, it's crazy that an interview could miss so many people qualified for the job.
However, I wonder if oftentimes companies are aiming for..
p(job_capable | interview_capable)
If p(job_capable | interview_capable) is high, and p(interview_capable) is pretty good also, then the company will probably get what it's looking for.
This means that the author is right to recognize the test is doing a bad job of measuring their job readiness. A reasonable instrument in this case doesn't have to measure everyone's job fitness (whether there are nasty side effects is another big issue).
- paxys 7y agoA simple way of saying this - companies are optimizing for filtering out bad candidates, at the expense of sometimes filtering out good candidates. Because the cost of hiring the wrong person is a LOT higher than missing out on the right one.
- ticmasta 7y ago... and then they can complain about the dearth of software developers...
- andreilys 7y agoBingo. If you have hundreds or thousand of applicants, you need some sort of standardized system.
- heartbeats 7y ago> Because the cost of hiring the wrong person is a LOT higher than missing out on the right one. Why can't anyone come up with a good solution for this? A "we'll hire you for a month and see how it goes" kind of deal?
- demosito666 7y agoI don't know about US, but where I live they hire you with 1-3 months "trial period" during which the company can fire you any time if you turned out unfit for the job. This is exactly your proposal.
- closed 7y agoThe simple explanation makes sense, but I'm realizing there's a subtle point here that I should been more clear on. They might not be filtering out the bad at the expense of the good. But filtering out some of the good in the name of saving the money it would cost to develop / administer more general assessments. That's the p(interview_capable) piece whereas the trade-off you mention is the conditional probability (also important!).