4 ms·

You're complaining that, to get a job, you have to demonstrate your ability to do the job, in a standardized way so the employer can compare you to other candid

• lhorie 6y ago
  > so the employer can compare And why do we think this is objective? Ostensibly, the first one to clear some threshold of competence ought to be good enough to be hired (in fact there's even extensively studied algorithms[1] for this stuff). In the vast majority of cases, it's highly unlikely that you're going to find an underpriced genius via some misguided notion of test standardization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
  • username90 6y ago
    Big companies aren't looking for underpriced geniuses. Standardized hiring is like index funds, many argue they can get better results by hand picking stocks but index funds still tend to outperform managed investing unless you are really really good at it. In a big company the people doing the hiring will be mediocre at it, so you need a process they wont screw up.
  • mayoff 6y ago
    I think it's objective because I can weed out candidates based solely on objective questions about their solution to the coding problem. Of course there's still lots of subjectivity in the process, but I did say “the merest hint of objectivity”. Here's my real world case study. I wrote a programming problem for RGM Advisors. The company was sold and so its web site no longer exists. Here's someone's solution to that problem: https://github.com/perrye2/LimitOrderBook https://github.com/perrye2/LimitOrderBook My original problem statement is in the PDF in that repo. Here are some of the objective ways we evaluated submissions: - Does the submission parse/compile? - Does the submission run and not crash? - Does the submission follow the specification for how it should be invoked? - Does the submission produce the correct output? - Did the candidate submit answers to the time/space complexity questions given in the problem statement? - Do those answers correctly characterize the submission?
• _qulr 6y ago
  > with the merest hint of objectivity That's all it is. Superficial objectivity. Auditions are not a good analogy. Programmers are not stage performers. We're usually sitting alone in front of a keyboard. That's where we do our best work. Not with others standing over our shoulders, holding our entire fate in their hands, ready to kick us out the door if they're displeased in any way in the moment.
  • swader999 6y ago
    Yeah this is tough I agree and I've been on both sides and felt this pain. On the bright side a very excellent means of hiring and finding new work is through colleagues you've worked with in the past. So do good work and keep in touch with past people you've worked with.
• wendyshu 6y ago
  There are tradeoffs and "objectivity" may be overvalued.
• jjav 6y ago
  > You're complaining that, to get a job, you have to demonstrate your ability to do the job That's not generally what people complain in these interview threads. The complaint is that to get a software job one must demonstrate a performance skill 100% unrelated to the actual job. It's as if a surgeon with 20 years experience in his specialty would be interviewed by making them balance chemical reaction equations. Sure, they studied that back in undergrad prior to med school but it's completely irrelevant to the job. But that's how we treat software interviewing.
  • ryandrake 6y ago
    Lots of software interview practices would never fly in the medical world: Take home tests, work samples, and coding challenges are like asking a surgeon with 20 years experience to remove someone's appendix at home as proof that they are competent. Whiteboard coding is like asking them to remove someone's appendix on the spot with a 30 minute timer running while a bored other surgeon pays attention to which tools he or she uses.