7 ms·

One of the best things about accomodations is that they benefit nearly everyone. Ramps instead of stairs? Necessary for wheelchairs, but good for elderly knees

• H8crilA 5y ago
  Interviews via Docs will have an even higher cheating rate than the phone calls, can't wait to hear stories about that, lol.
  • avianlyric 5y ago
    That why you have multiple stages. It’s stupid to rule out accommodations because people might cheat. You shouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the transgressions of the guilty minority.
    • dolni 5y ago
      > You shouldn’t punish the innocent majority for the transgressions of the guilty minority. Have you stopped to think about just how much stuff we have to do and put up with as a society because a small number of people are dishonest? We have to have IDs, because people might lie about who they are. We have to have an entire (very expensive) criminal justice system because people might commit crimes. We have to have locks on the doors to our homes and vehicles, because people might trespass. We have to have cashiers and overly-complicated automated registers (with someone watching) because people might not want to pay for everything that they are taking out of a store. You show up at a closing for a new home, they want a cashier's check, not your personal one. Why? You might not actually be good for the money. Plus they do all the title work. Every bank has a giant safe. Every country has some weapons of war. It's very idealistic to say "well only a few people will cheat so it's fine." It isn't, and it never has been.
      • vharuck 5y ago
        >We have to have locks on the doors to our homes and vehicles, because people might trespass. But most of us don't have metal bars over our homes' windows. There's a middle ground of making bad behavior mildly inconvenient. Also, all of your examples are precautions born from experience. There have been burglars and shoplifters for centuries, so it makes sense to have some preventions. When deciding whether to try something new, it can be counterproductive to focus a lot on preventing cheating. I'd suggest seeing if it ever becomes a problem worth addressing.
        • dolni 5y ago
          People have been cheating on tests for as long as tests have been around. That is born from experience. You haven't made any compelling argument to support why a job interview would be different in that regard.
          • avianlyric 5y ago
            At a certain point you just have to accept it happens, and build systems the deal with it in a reasonable way. With some imagination you can build systems that handle it without punishing minorities. To do otherwise just shows a lack of imagination and compassion. Personally I think we can do better, and that is enough of a reason.
          • icedchai 5y ago
            I remember taking some online test for a freelance job site that stated they had mechanisms in place to detect cheating. So I googled a bunch of stuff in Javascript then translated it into a different programming language (they wanted Python, I think.) This cheating was not detected. I didn't want the job anyway, so I bailed out after I "passed" the test.
          • ipaddr 5y ago
            The cost benefit ratio would show it would be wasteful to throw out 20% more diverse candidates for 5% false positives. Much cheaper to deal with those 5%.
  • bawolff 5y ago
    If you can google the answer to an interview question, its not a good interview question
    • H8crilA 5y ago
      That's not exactly the cheating that I was thinking about. I meant either hiring/getting someone to do the interview for you, or to do it together with you.
      • bawolff 5y ago
        Oh, that's fair. I guess you could still bring someone on site and just have them do the text based interview on site. I suppose at some point, cheaters will find a way to cheat, and if they pass the interview but suck you just have to fire them.
• dolni 5y ago
  Sure, they do benefit everyone, but you missed the point I was making. The point is that they claim it is to level a playing field, but they're not actually doing that if those accommodations are open to everybody. Your comparison also comes off a bit disingenuous. They're talking about interview accommodations like "providing questions in advance" and "extended interview time".
  • tshaddox 5y ago
    But again, who is harmed by extending these accommodations to everyone?
    • dolni 5y ago
      Well, for one thing, if you have "normal" employees who can conduct a regular interview process, they might raise some red flags in how they conduct themselves in person that wouldn't be apparent in a remote setting. One example could be that an interviewee inappropriately stares at a woman or makes an inappropriate remark while on-campus. You wouldn't see that if the entire interview were conducted only via Google Docs.
      • ipaddr 5y ago
        Probably the worst reason given against. How many interviews pass or fail because of that situation vs failing because of running out of time? 0 Males and females will apply. Holding back women because you fear men will look the wrong way seems unfair and needless.
      • bawolff 5y ago
        Wow really? I assume most of those types of people are probably able to be on best behaviour for a day. I imagine most of them can pass an interview and then be creepy later.
  • avianlyric 5y ago
    Your making the assumption that the accommodations are meant to provide some sort of “advantage” to compensate for some other “disadvantage”. Like dealing with disabilities is some sort of arithmetic problem. Accommodations just provide optionality, and let’s people choose the approach that suites them best. Rather than assuming that you can fairly apply some rigid standardised test on people, and expect it to accurately measure individuals. There’s plenty of data, and some pretty basic stats, which show this doesn’t work. Proving extra time provides almost no advantage to anyone. Either you can answer the questions well, or you can’t. The amount of time it takes to do isn’t very relevant, so taking more time isn’t an advantage. Providing questions in advance also isn’t an advantage. Again you can either answer them well or not. If you’re worried about people cheating by passing the questions around, then only provide them an hour or two in advanced, or only once they’re onsite. If you’re interview process can be fooled by giving people more time, or advanced notice, then quite frankly it’s not a very good interview process.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• andai 5y ago
  Also plain old social anxiety and performance anxiety!
• winphone1974 5y ago
  All of those examples have real, non-trivial costs for employers though. If in order to adopt any of them I need to provide them to everybody I'll just provide the accommodations to no one
  • paxys 5y ago
    Every employee benefit has a non-trivial cost. You may not want to offer them, but if your competitor does then guess who I'm going to interview with?
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  If I'm good at conveying my thoughts verbally and then you take that away, now you have thus created a detrimental system for me. ADA compliance is good and bad in the sense that it helps people who need it so they can function on their own, but also is a burden on everyone else for the simple sake that in case someone who needs that benefit can use it, even though 99.9% of the time it will be used by people who don't. I mean we don't exactly see ADA compliance for parks. So short of essential buildings, I think it's unreasonably excessive.