3 ms·

Well, I can say from personal experience that there are interviews when I've aced the algorithm question(s), and other interviews when I haven't. Not hugely di

Well, I can say from personal experience that there are interviews when I've aced the algorithm question(s), and other interviews when I haven't. Not hugely different in time interviews, either. So I can say from personal experience that it doesn't correlate all that well with my own performance, or it would be constant. I expect, though, that the issue is that the degree of correlation measured will depend on the population you're screening with it. If you are wanting to screen out fraudulent or otherwise utterly non-programmer persons, it will show a good correlation. However, among those who are actually programmers, it will show much less correlation, and if you're in a condition of developer scarcity, the false negatives could be more costly than the false positives.

username90 7y ago
> Well, I can say from personal experience that there are interviews when I've aced the algorithm question(s), and other interviews when I haven't. Not hugely different in time interviews, either. So I can say from personal experience that it doesn't correlate all that well with my own performance, or it would be constant. Do you even understand what correlation means? There is a significant random element to it, yes, but that doesn't mean that there is no correlation, and the random parts from the same individual can be mitigated by doing many interviews after which you have reasonable correlation. Most interview styles has close to zero correlation, so even if we don't reach anything remotely close to 1 it is still pretty good. Edit: About the points that it is enough to weed out people using simple problems, that isn't true either. There was significant correlation between job performance and interview performance even among those who did well. The statistics showed no signs of it capping out either, so for all we know we could make them even harder, just that there wouldn't be that many left that could pass them then.

username90 7y ago

> Well, I can say from personal experience that there are interviews when I've aced the algorithm question(s), and other interviews when I haven't. Not hugely different in time interviews, either. So I can say from personal experience that it doesn't correlate all that well with my own performance, or it would be constant. Do you even understand what correlation means? There is a significant random element to it, yes, but that doesn't mean that there is no correlation, and the random parts from the same individual can be mitigated by doing many interviews after which you have reasonable correlation. Most interview styles has close to zero correlation, so even if we don't reach anything remotely close to 1 it is still pretty good. Edit: About the points that it is enough to weed out people using simple problems, that isn't true either. There was significant correlation between job performance and interview performance even among those who did well. The statistics showed no signs of it capping out either, so for all we know we could make them even harder, just that there wouldn't be that many left that could pass them then.