3 ms·

> If something appears broken to you, but persists for a long time, it's time to start considering that the apparently broken thing actually serves a purpose yo

> If something appears broken to you, but persists for a long time, it's time to start considering that the apparently broken thing actually serves a purpose you can't see to someone you don't know. What does this even imply? That someone benefits from this broken system? The recruiting firms? It is indeed broken as engineers are not happy with going through the middleman gauntlet, companies are short on developers and would ideally want to hire asap. The only problem I see for companies here is find the right candidates (filter the bad candidates) but all these obstacles don't seem to be doing that at all. So back to the drawing board...

itsdrewmiller 6y ago
It implies that the things that people complain about in interviews may serve a non-obvious purpose. For example, giving hard algorithm problems may not be to test whether you are a good programmer, but to test whether you are invested enough in landing the job to study for the interview.
- coralreef 6y ago
  This kind of logic can be used to rationalize anything and does not satisfy first principles thinking. Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes, otherwise there is no metric for measuring their effectiveness. An example of this is coming up with "how many golf balls can you fit in a bus?" riddles, in the vain attempt at "seeing how the person thinks"/"problem solving"/"creativity".
  - itsdrewmiller 6y ago
    I'm not trying to defend it (and as a hiring manager I don't do it) - I'm just explaining the implication of Chesterton's Fence as applied to interviews. "Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes" seems very wrong to me, though - they should certainly serve useful purposes, and those purposes should be documented, but there is no real reason they need to be obvious to a layperson. Google specifically dropped those riddles because they did not find them effective, which means they have some metric for testing efficacy. They have not dropped algorithmic challenges, though. I wonder why?
- imtringued 6y ago
  That's just a way to reduce the number of applicants if you don't care about getting the goods hires because bad hires can game the interview just as much as good hires.
  - itsdrewmiller 6y ago
    I'm skeptical of this claim - I believe bad programmers could study for years and still not be able to fake their way through an algorithmic interview administered by a competent programmer, and lazy programmers are probably not going to put in the effort to game it. I agree it will reduce the number of applicants though.

itsdrewmiller 6y ago

It implies that the things that people complain about in interviews may serve a non-obvious purpose. For example, giving hard algorithm problems may not be to test whether you are a good programmer, but to test whether you are invested enough in landing the job to study for the interview.

coralreef 6y ago
This kind of logic can be used to rationalize anything and does not satisfy first principles thinking. Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes, otherwise there is no metric for measuring their effectiveness. An example of this is coming up with "how many golf balls can you fit in a bus?" riddles, in the vain attempt at "seeing how the person thinks"/"problem solving"/"creativity".
- itsdrewmiller 6y ago
  I'm not trying to defend it (and as a hiring manager I don't do it) - I'm just explaining the implication of Chesterton's Fence as applied to interviews. "Processes and tests should serve obvious purposes" seems very wrong to me, though - they should certainly serve useful purposes, and those purposes should be documented, but there is no real reason they need to be obvious to a layperson. Google specifically dropped those riddles because they did not find them effective, which means they have some metric for testing efficacy. They have not dropped algorithmic challenges, though. I wonder why?
imtringued 6y ago
That's just a way to reduce the number of applicants if you don't care about getting the goods hires because bad hires can game the interview just as much as good hires.
- itsdrewmiller 6y ago
  I'm skeptical of this claim - I believe bad programmers could study for years and still not be able to fake their way through an algorithmic interview administered by a competent programmer, and lazy programmers are probably not going to put in the effort to game it. I agree it will reduce the number of applicants though.