3 ms·
>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. Th
by 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 agoPeople 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 agoAt 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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%.
- MichaelZuo 5y agoIs that just your opinion or do you actually have numbers to show? Your comment isn’t clear.