5 ms·

We all know interviews are unrealistic. But nobody knows an alternative way of testing a candidate in few hours.

by mlboss 4y ago

0x20cowboy 4y ago
It doesn’t work, but we’re going to do it anyway. Science.
lapcat 4y ago
> nobody knows an alternative way of testing a candidate in few hours Why test? Seriously, why are interviews tests? Everyone seems very worried about incompetent job candidates, but what about incompetent colleagues and managers? We act like interviews are one-way when in fact they're two-way, and the candidate needs to decide if they actually want to work for the potential employer. Does the candidate get to test the interviewers? Nobody wants to work with incompetent colleagues, and especially not an incompetent manager, which is the worst. There are a lot of incompetent engineering managers, and indeed I would estimate that engineering managers are more likely to be incompetent than engineers, because engineers are frequently promoted to engineering managers despite having no background or training in management. It's ok though, I'll let the manager do a take home test in their spare time.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Could tests be the least worst option? Onboarding is expensive. Contract to hire may be the next least bad solution, assuming one doesn't require the new person months to get up too speed.
- molsongolden 4y ago
  Rigorous interviews are intended to reduce the number of incompetent colleagues and managers. All of those colleagues and managers went through interviews too. Sometimes candidates prefer rigorous interviews because it means the people inside the company all made it through those same hoops.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Rigorous interviews are intended to reduce the number of incompetent colleagues and managers. All of those colleagues and managers went through interviews too. My point was that engineers get promoted to engineering manager without any kind of "manager test", so there's no assurance of competence at all. Also, I've heard of many cases where certain candidates are allowed to bypass the normal interview rounds, or get coached on the company's interviews, or get "softball" questions during those interviews, if the company wants to hire that person for some reason no matter what. Moreover, there's no guarantee that the current interview process is the same as the past interview process, especially for older companies. (Think Apple, for example.) Certainly the founders of a company never went through the process, and probably the initial employees didn't either. The founding of a company is almost always "informal", and only later is a more "rigorous" process imposed on newcomers.
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      > My point was that engineers get promoted to engineering manager without any kind of "manager test", so there's no assurance of competence at all. Of course they do - their entire experience with the company prior is the "manager test". A company that just promotes anyone to EM that just puts their hand up, despite demonstrating their not suitable, has other problems.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > A company that just promotes anyone to EM that just puts their hand up, despite demonstrating their not suitable, has other problems. This is a straw man. It doesn't happen, and nobody believes that it happens. What does happen is that people who are good at engineering get promoted to engineering management, but writing code and managing humans are two entirely different skills. In fact it's especially true in companies with "rigorous" entrance exams that engineers employed by the company have focused on the coding aspect heavily in the past, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to pass the exams. So their people skills would have tended to be neglected or ignored entirely.
- hnfong 4y ago
  Interviews are definitely two way. That's why instead of complaining that companies don't interview the way you prefer them to ("interviewers refuse to listen"), you should just let them be the "incompetent" teams that you believe them to be, so that you can tell whether they're "incompetent" and decide to take an offer from a company that does things the way you like. Then everyone is happy!
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > That's why instead of complaining that companies don't interview the way you prefer them to ("interviewers refuse to listen") This is a misconstrual. The point was that interviewers refuse to listen to scientific studies that show interviews test for anxiety rather than skills. > Then everyone is happy! Not when the whole industry cargo cults on audition-style interview tests.
- InitialBP 4y ago
  When you say "test" are you referring to technical coding challenges in the interview process? An interview is essentially a test, regardless of whether it contains a whiteboard coding assignment, a presentation, or even just a conversation. At the end of the day an interview is designed for a company to decide whether or not they should extend an offer to a candidate and (hopefully) for a candidate to learn about the company before potentially accepting an offer. The point of this process is for both parties to decide if they would be a good fit together. They are literally "testing" each other.

We all know interviews are unrealistic. But nobody knows an alternative way of testing a candidate in few hours.

by mlboss 4y ago

We all know interviews are unrealistic. But nobody knows an alternative way of testing a candidate in few hours.

0x20cowboy 4y ago

It doesn’t work, but we’re going to do it anyway. Science.

lapcat 4y ago

> nobody knows an alternative way of testing a candidate in few hours Why test? Seriously, why are interviews tests? Everyone seems very worried about incompetent job candidates, but what about incompetent colleagues and managers? We act like interviews are one-way when in fact they're two-way, and the candidate needs to decide if they actually want to work for the potential employer. Does the candidate get to test the interviewers? Nobody wants to work with incompetent colleagues, and especially not an incompetent manager, which is the worst. There are a lot of incompetent engineering managers, and indeed I would estimate that engineering managers are more likely to be incompetent than engineers, because engineers are frequently promoted to engineering managers despite having no background or training in management. It's ok though, I'll let the manager do a take home test in their spare time.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Could tests be the least worst option? Onboarding is expensive. Contract to hire may be the next least bad solution, assuming one doesn't require the new person months to get up too speed.
molsongolden 4y ago
Rigorous interviews are intended to reduce the number of incompetent colleagues and managers. All of those colleagues and managers went through interviews too. Sometimes candidates prefer rigorous interviews because it means the people inside the company all made it through those same hoops.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Rigorous interviews are intended to reduce the number of incompetent colleagues and managers. All of those colleagues and managers went through interviews too. My point was that engineers get promoted to engineering manager without any kind of "manager test", so there's no assurance of competence at all. Also, I've heard of many cases where certain candidates are allowed to bypass the normal interview rounds, or get coached on the company's interviews, or get "softball" questions during those interviews, if the company wants to hire that person for some reason no matter what. Moreover, there's no guarantee that the current interview process is the same as the past interview process, especially for older companies. (Think Apple, for example.) Certainly the founders of a company never went through the process, and probably the initial employees didn't either. The founding of a company is almost always "informal", and only later is a more "rigorous" process imposed on newcomers.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    > My point was that engineers get promoted to engineering manager without any kind of "manager test", so there's no assurance of competence at all. Of course they do - their entire experience with the company prior is the "manager test". A company that just promotes anyone to EM that just puts their hand up, despite demonstrating their not suitable, has other problems.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > A company that just promotes anyone to EM that just puts their hand up, despite demonstrating their not suitable, has other problems. This is a straw man. It doesn't happen, and nobody believes that it happens. What does happen is that people who are good at engineering get promoted to engineering management, but writing code and managing humans are two entirely different skills. In fact it's especially true in companies with "rigorous" entrance exams that engineers employed by the company have focused on the coding aspect heavily in the past, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to pass the exams. So their people skills would have tended to be neglected or ignored entirely.
hnfong 4y ago
Interviews are definitely two way. That's why instead of complaining that companies don't interview the way you prefer them to ("interviewers refuse to listen"), you should just let them be the "incompetent" teams that you believe them to be, so that you can tell whether they're "incompetent" and decide to take an offer from a company that does things the way you like. Then everyone is happy!
- lapcat 4y ago
  > That's why instead of complaining that companies don't interview the way you prefer them to ("interviewers refuse to listen") This is a misconstrual. The point was that interviewers refuse to listen to scientific studies that show interviews test for anxiety rather than skills. > Then everyone is happy! Not when the whole industry cargo cults on audition-style interview tests.
InitialBP 4y ago
When you say "test" are you referring to technical coding challenges in the interview process? An interview is essentially a test, regardless of whether it contains a whiteboard coding assignment, a presentation, or even just a conversation. At the end of the day an interview is designed for a company to decide whether or not they should extend an offer to a candidate and (hopefully) for a candidate to learn about the company before potentially accepting an offer. The point of this process is for both parties to decide if they would be a good fit together. They are literally "testing" each other.