3 ms·

> 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

by 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?

by lhorie 6y ago

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?