6 ms·

Oh I'd agree there's cultural bias issues, but that is a complete straw man in this context. The article wasn't about cultural bias, nor was my reply. Meritocr

by dahart 5y ago

Oh I'd agree there's cultural bias issues, but that is a complete straw man in this context. The article wasn't about cultural bias, nor was my reply. Meritocracy, incidentally, is a term that was invented to demonstrate bias, not a signifier of the ideal system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions > The burden of proof is on folks that keep pushing these silly tasks This strikes me as a somewhat bizarre and myopic way of thinking about jobs. There is no burden of proof at all, because there is no claim being made. The deal here is someone will pay you money, if you agree to do the work they ask. This opportunity is available to people who make it through the interviews in order to demonstrate they meet the qualifications for the job. Companies that are hiring are the sole decider of what these qualifications are, and can choose to have them demonstrated in any way they choose (up to what we agree are legal limits.) If you don't want money, then don't submit to "silly tasks". (I've never witnessed silly tasks in my interviewing, ever. I've had questions for which I don't have experience, and questions that are too hard, but the questions have always been pretty focused on figuring out what I know and how good of a programmer I am, and by extension how much they are going to pay me...)

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Your reply is written as if a system that is trustworthy is being accused of being untrustworthy. Instead, a system that we know runs poorly in 10 ways is claimed to be run poorly in 11 ways. That is a dramatic difference and this would be a valid argument in a court of law - if the system was never run properly, why do you expect it runs properly when it comes to this particular matter? Why would anyone put their faith in it?
- dahart 5y ago
  > That is a dramatical difference and this would be a valid argument in a court of law What are you talking about? > Why would anyone put their faith in it? They need money, maybe? Because software developers are, by and large, employed (not to mention paid well)? Because the economy is functioning? I don't understand what you're suggesting, what is the alternative to interviewing? What do you want fixed? Why are you coming down hard on me for suggesting that not being allowed to Google the answer to your interview question isn't a serious problem that needs solving? How would you hire people if you had a company? What does trust have to do with interviewing? Does one need to have trust in order to get a job? Do you have a job? Aside from cultural bias, what are examples of the system breaking trust in large numbers that demonstrate that hiring is "broken"? Where is the data that shows this? Since you want to talk about trust, why should a company trust your or your claim of being qualified for a job without asking you to demonstrate you're qualified, in a time-bound and resource-bound setting? The interview questions you called "silly tasks" are nothing more than a request to demonstrate a very small amount of your claimed education and ability. Is that unreasonable? Why or why not?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "What are you talking about?" The following statement is not very convincing: "maybe hiring is broken up when it comes to culture, gender, race, personal connections and class, but when it comes to programming tests, we certainly have it right" Mistakes in other areas indicate mistakes are very likely in this area. Parallel with courts was meant to illustrate that "They need money, maybe?" If thsts the only reason, they won't put their faith in it, they will game the system to the maximum possible degree. I think what we are doing in this industry is idiotic, we do not ask surgeons to do a 30-minute surgery on a dog to test their skills in surgery on people, we do not ask structural engineers to make a bridge out of matchsticks to test their skill. Maybe we need qualifications that can actually be trusted, thats one possible solution.
    - dahart 5y ago
      > Then they won't put their faith in it, they will game the system to the maximum possoble degree. Hence the request to demonstrate basic proficiency? You seem to be inventing reasons to criticize and argue with me about subjects that neither I nor the article I responded to brought up. I didn't claim that programming tests are "right", so this is like your 4th straw man in a row. You don't seem to be answering any questions about how to improve the situation. Aside from bias, you haven't yet demonstrated a problem with hiring from the company side or the candidate side that has data to back it up. What would you do to improve your perceived imperfections in the interview and hiring process? > I think what we are doing in this industry is idiotic, we do not ask surgeons to do a 30-minute surgery on a dog to test their skills in surgery on people, we do not ask structural engineers to make a bridge out of matchsticks to test their skill. This comment makes it seem like you are ignorant of and not even remotely aware of what the qualifications and interviews are like in other fields, and how much worse and more difficult they are than software. Surgeons go through years of low paid residency, and accreditation, and they suffer a whole battery of knowledge based tests where they're not allowed to Google the answer. Same for structural engineering. The fields of surgery and structural engineering both have cultural bias problems, just like software.
      - 5y ago

by dahart 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Your reply is written as if a system that is trustworthy is being accused of being untrustworthy. Instead, a system that we know runs poorly in 10 ways is claimed to be run poorly in 11 ways. That is a dramatic difference and this would be a valid argument in a court of law - if the system was never run properly, why do you expect it runs properly when it comes to this particular matter? Why would anyone put their faith in it?

dahart 5y ago
> That is a dramatical difference and this would be a valid argument in a court of law What are you talking about? > Why would anyone put their faith in it? They need money, maybe? Because software developers are, by and large, employed (not to mention paid well)? Because the economy is functioning? I don't understand what you're suggesting, what is the alternative to interviewing? What do you want fixed? Why are you coming down hard on me for suggesting that not being allowed to Google the answer to your interview question isn't a serious problem that needs solving? How would you hire people if you had a company? What does trust have to do with interviewing? Does one need to have trust in order to get a job? Do you have a job? Aside from cultural bias, what are examples of the system breaking trust in large numbers that demonstrate that hiring is "broken"? Where is the data that shows this? Since you want to talk about trust, why should a company trust your or your claim of being qualified for a job without asking you to demonstrate you're qualified, in a time-bound and resource-bound setting? The interview questions you called "silly tasks" are nothing more than a request to demonstrate a very small amount of your claimed education and ability. Is that unreasonable? Why or why not?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "What are you talking about?" The following statement is not very convincing: "maybe hiring is broken up when it comes to culture, gender, race, personal connections and class, but when it comes to programming tests, we certainly have it right" Mistakes in other areas indicate mistakes are very likely in this area. Parallel with courts was meant to illustrate that "They need money, maybe?" If thsts the only reason, they won't put their faith in it, they will game the system to the maximum possible degree. I think what we are doing in this industry is idiotic, we do not ask surgeons to do a 30-minute surgery on a dog to test their skills in surgery on people, we do not ask structural engineers to make a bridge out of matchsticks to test their skill. Maybe we need qualifications that can actually be trusted, thats one possible solution.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > Then they won't put their faith in it, they will game the system to the maximum possoble degree. Hence the request to demonstrate basic proficiency? You seem to be inventing reasons to criticize and argue with me about subjects that neither I nor the article I responded to brought up. I didn't claim that programming tests are "right", so this is like your 4th straw man in a row. You don't seem to be answering any questions about how to improve the situation. Aside from bias, you haven't yet demonstrated a problem with hiring from the company side or the candidate side that has data to back it up. What would you do to improve your perceived imperfections in the interview and hiring process? > I think what we are doing in this industry is idiotic, we do not ask surgeons to do a 30-minute surgery on a dog to test their skills in surgery on people, we do not ask structural engineers to make a bridge out of matchsticks to test their skill. This comment makes it seem like you are ignorant of and not even remotely aware of what the qualifications and interviews are like in other fields, and how much worse and more difficult they are than software. Surgeons go through years of low paid residency, and accreditation, and they suffer a whole battery of knowledge based tests where they're not allowed to Google the answer. Same for structural engineering. The fields of surgery and structural engineering both have cultural bias problems, just like software.
    - 5y ago