4 ms·
> (they're unlikely to ask clarifying questions, because that would look the same as stalling to disguise the shallowness of their knowledge) This feels backwa
by majormajor 6y ago
> (they're unlikely to ask clarifying questions, because that would look the same as stalling to disguise the shallowness of their knowledge)
This feels backwards to me. If you have comprehensive knowledge, you almost have to narrow down the question!
Or just talk continually until you've exhausted every single detail of every single aspect. The latter is rarely going to be what you want to do.
There's a level of "this is also a test of your communications skills" in every interview question, and it's a valuable thing to look for. So if you don't treat it as a 2-way street... you probably should.
- mjw1007 6y agoThey might, for example, decide to demonstrate one aspect of their communication skills without asking clarifying questions by showing that they can, on the fly, produce a high-level summary of what happens when you load a URL followed by orderly expansions of each of the steps involved in increasing levels of detail. I've been listening to people expound their theories of interviewing for decades now, and very often they have some pet idea which involves asking the candidate for something and then trying to deduce information indirectly from how they interpret the request. I think these theories are pretty much all bad ideas, because what the candidate is actually doing is trying to guess what the interviewer wants to hear.
- fractionalhare 6y agoA lot of what you're describing is better solved by training interviewers on a standardized process, and having both the recruiter and interviewer set explicit expectations around communication. It's true there are good and bad interview questions, but candidates should be encouraged to ask clarifying questions. To alleviate a candidate's fears about doing so, this encouragement should be made explicit throughout the hiring process.