4 ms·

It is plausible, but at least the medium and small fish in the pond seem to be doing it out of typical human stupidity rather than a conscious effort. Or worse,

It is plausible, but at least the medium and small fish in the pond seem to be doing it out of typical human stupidity rather than a conscious effort. Or worse, they try to imitate the big fish.

eastbound 4y ago
I’m all for hiring employees without interviews. Most of them will quit their job, work for me one day, then stress out because they didn’t match. So, out of respect, I do perform tests. But some employees who seem perfectly good during tests come into the company with plenty of grammar mistakes, then I notice that they only master the surface of everything and they get fired. I should charge employees for passing my exams, since it lowers the risk of misadventures. I’m so tired of this “Employers are evil” trope often suffixed with “because going to a coding interview is like working for free.” I should do lengthy tests just to filter out stingy employees. (and I talk as someone who gave a 78% raise to one employee who’s been here 10 months, and 30% to the other).
- skyyler 4y ago
  Doing deliberately lengthy tests doesn't filter out stingy employees, it filters out employees with self-respect.
  - VoodooJuJu 4y ago
    I fear that's exactly what an employer wants. They get more hours for less money out of an employee like that.
    - skyyler 4y ago
      They also get substandard solutions. IME, confident people are just better. A subjugated worker doesn't make a very good problem solver. They're really good at following procedure, though.
  - redanddead 4y ago
    Wow feels like we just witnessed a microcosm of the wider market forces.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  Or you could very well hire them for a few days (on holidays at their ob or on unpaid leave for contractors), see how it goes and take it from there. I don't think employers are evil, they don't get value out of the interview process. I would say both employer and prospect employee gets a similar value out of it (the chance of hiring / being hired). I think employers (or better, their middle managers in charge or recruitment) are mostly stupid and inefficient. Working together for a bit is the only way of actually checking if someone will be fine doing the job or not. Demonstrating some random knowledge is not a good predictor of success. I worked with people who passed leetcoding and were trash and people who didn't who were amazing. I found out about their qualities only after a few weeks of work (not even full time, even just on and off).
- krageon 4y ago
  I'm assuming you're pretending to be some caricature for comedic purposes, but it would be a lot more clear if you clarified that somehow.

It is plausible, but at least the medium and small fish in the pond seem to be doing it out of typical human stupidity rather than a conscious effort. Or worse, they try to imitate the big fish.

eastbound 4y ago

I’m all for hiring employees without interviews. Most of them will quit their job, work for me one day, then stress out because they didn’t match. So, out of respect, I do perform tests. But some employees who seem perfectly good during tests come into the company with plenty of grammar mistakes, then I notice that they only master the surface of everything and they get fired. I should charge employees for passing my exams, since it lowers the risk of misadventures. I’m so tired of this “Employers are evil” trope often suffixed with “because going to a coding interview is like working for free.” I should do lengthy tests just to filter out stingy employees. (and I talk as someone who gave a 78% raise to one employee who’s been here 10 months, and 30% to the other).

skyyler 4y ago
Doing deliberately lengthy tests doesn't filter out stingy employees, it filters out employees with self-respect.
- VoodooJuJu 4y ago
  I fear that's exactly what an employer wants. They get more hours for less money out of an employee like that.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    They also get substandard solutions. IME, confident people are just better. A subjugated worker doesn't make a very good problem solver. They're really good at following procedure, though.
- redanddead 4y ago
  Wow feels like we just witnessed a microcosm of the wider market forces.
jokethrowaway 4y ago
Or you could very well hire them for a few days (on holidays at their ob or on unpaid leave for contractors), see how it goes and take it from there. I don't think employers are evil, they don't get value out of the interview process. I would say both employer and prospect employee gets a similar value out of it (the chance of hiring / being hired). I think employers (or better, their middle managers in charge or recruitment) are mostly stupid and inefficient. Working together for a bit is the only way of actually checking if someone will be fine doing the job or not. Demonstrating some random knowledge is not a good predictor of success. I worked with people who passed leetcoding and were trash and people who didn't who were amazing. I found out about their qualities only after a few weeks of work (not even full time, even just on and off).
krageon 4y ago
I'm assuming you're pretending to be some caricature for comedic purposes, but it would be a lot more clear if you clarified that somehow.