2 ms·
I do think that the people giving the questions and interacting with the applicant should be different from the ones judging their results. This also gives you
by andrewflnr 6y ago
I do think that the people giving the questions and interacting with the applicant should be different from the ones judging their results. This also gives you the opportunity to blind the judging for race, gender, etc. The proctor should be explicitly on the applicant's "side" IMO.
- hinkley 6y agoI used to 'sit in' on interviews, and basically say very little except to answer questions about working here or to serve as the 'linter' to get them unstuck. You hear something very different than the person who asked the question. And in one case I discovered that my coworker had been asking a question that he thought he knew the answer to and did not; a deep clone implementation (where he never asked about cyclic graphs).
- andrewflnr 6y agoI assumed it rather than say it out loud, but my idea is to have standard, vetted questions, to reduce the risk of a question being mal-formed like that (unless you want to see how they make tradeoffs in response to an overambitious spec). Your situation sounds rather different. Do you think my scenario would work better?