4 ms·

Unless you are hired for a very specific function, why would testing specific knowledge be useful? The way I see a Senior is someone who can autonomously get s

Unless you are hired for a very specific function, why would testing specific knowledge be useful? The way I see a Senior is someone who can autonomously get shit done. How does testing for specific knowledge help determine if someone is capable of solving problems autonomously? If they don't have knowledge they should be able to seek it out.

paulcole 5y ago
The article makes it pretty clear that the exercise is a conversation, not a test. It’s not just seeing what they know, it’s finding out if they can carry on a pleasant conversation. It’s finding out if they can discuss a technical topic beyond telling the other person to “Google it.” In many organizations a Senior is responsible for helping the Juniors become Seniors — a responsibility not well suited to the autonomous lone wolf.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  The way the author writes and answers questions in the comments shows he does actually see it as a test. > Note that since our technical discussion is a conversation. I don’t expect a perfect answer from anyone. If I hear some right keywords, I know that the candidate knows the concept, and I try to push them in the right direction I.e. if you don't know the concept you don't pass. And in a comment: > I would much rather hire an all-rounder with deep knowledge of HTML/CSS/JS rather than a particular framework. This “Twitter source code” test demonstrates just that. He literally calls it a test. Also, I'm not saying Seniors are lone wolfs. I'm saying that they should be able to work autonomously (I.e. without supervision). I'm not prescribing what that work entails.
LeonB 5y ago
In my company we see a senior as someone who can help increase the leverage of juniors. Another definition I’ve seen is “a senior developer is a developer who can turns other developers into senior developers” Whereas someone who can autonomously get shit done (and may or may not be good at the earlier definitions) is a “contractor”.

paulcole 5y ago

The article makes it pretty clear that the exercise is a conversation, not a test. It’s not just seeing what they know, it’s finding out if they can carry on a pleasant conversation. It’s finding out if they can discuss a technical topic beyond telling the other person to “Google it.” In many organizations a Senior is responsible for helping the Juniors become Seniors — a responsibility not well suited to the autonomous lone wolf.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago
The way the author writes and answers questions in the comments shows he does actually see it as a test. > Note that since our technical discussion is a conversation. I don’t expect a perfect answer from anyone. If I hear some right keywords, I know that the candidate knows the concept, and I try to push them in the right direction I.e. if you don't know the concept you don't pass. And in a comment: > I would much rather hire an all-rounder with deep knowledge of HTML/CSS/JS rather than a particular framework. This “Twitter source code” test demonstrates just that. He literally calls it a test. Also, I'm not saying Seniors are lone wolfs. I'm saying that they should be able to work autonomously (I.e. without supervision). I'm not prescribing what that work entails.

LeonB 5y ago

In my company we see a senior as someone who can help increase the leverage of juniors. Another definition I’ve seen is “a senior developer is a developer who can turns other developers into senior developers” Whereas someone who can autonomously get shit done (and may or may not be good at the earlier definitions) is a “contractor”.