6 ms·
TBF I don't think this is bad. The "cheating" involved seems a closer match to the actual real world conditions of the doing the job than the artificial "no int
by mattgibson 3y ago
TBF I don't think this is bad. The "cheating" involved seems a closer match to the actual real world conditions of the doing the job than the artificial "no internet allowed" assessment. If the candidates can get stuff done but need the internet as a reference, that's still getting stuff done. Not surprising that they are now getting promoted given they can not only get stuff done, but were resourceful enough to find a method to "cheat" and also pull it off successfully whilst being monitored.
- pydry 3y agoTechnically, it would be better if everybody had internet access. BUT, it means that Amazon creating a selection pressure for people who cheat. Long term this will be corrosive to the organizational fiber of the corporation as idiotic unrealistic leetcode questions are to the technical fiber. Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoI wouldn’t blame the devs for their quality issues. Try ownership.
- brookst 3y agoFinger pointing isn’t a great signal.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoQuality isn’t a skill issue. It’s prioritization. Ownership decides how devs spend their time.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago> Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions. People are just riding these organizations down as they crash, starting at the very top with the CEOs. The same feeling extends to the countries and societies where these things operate. Vultures upon a corpse.
- thih9 3y agoGet stuff done but not exactly meet all of the requirements. So maybe features will get implemented but rules and laws not necessarily respected. And perhaps that’s useful for some companies.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago“No internet during dev” is not a business requirement, it’s hazing When I used to run interviews (no longer working) I’d learn the most from seeing how candidates resourcefully used google, skimmed results, found relevant info. That was immediately revealing.
- hgsgm 3y ago"Interview should be a real world test of my abilities." "OK, take two weeks and create a feature." "No, not like that."
- wahnfrieden 3y agoWho said that (not me)
- ambicapter 3y agoMight not be you, but I've seen tons of people on this board bemoan take-home interview tests.
- falcolas 3y agoUsually people are only annoyed if they're not paid for their (excessive for an interview) time. Two weeks worth of contractor rates for a finished feature as an interview? Sign me up!
- thih9 3y agoI think it’s a popular approach to see the hiring process as hazing, at least in some companies. I.e. to throw random hurdles, later check who’s doing best and hire them. I saw companies state that openly. E.g. saying: we’re all competent programmers, none of us like leetcode and we don’t use that in our actual job, but we need a way to filter candidates and this seems the best practical solution. Again, perhaps desperate people and/or hustlers make for a good workforce, especially in some companies.
- nevermindiguess 3y agoThe goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities. Henceforth, cheating cannot be justified.
- fauxpause_ 3y agoIf the assessment has no relationship to the job requirements then the test assessment cannot be justified either
- John23832 3y agoAs much as I hate the current interview process, this isn't true. The justification foe the assessment is that the assessment is the defined set of hoops that the company who you are trying to get paid by has assigned.
- iainmerrick 3y agoIsn't that a bit circular? "This is the assignment because the assignment is this"?
- JohnFen 3y agoThat might be true, but is a different issue. It's certainly doesn't justify dishonesty.
- aidenn0 3y agoThat's a silly argument. There are many jobs at which being smart is an advantage. IQ tests correlate fairly well with being smart. Giving an IQ test could then give you a group of people that are more likely to be smart than the initial interviewing population. Assuming the job is not "taking IQ tests" is the assessment unjustified?
- fauxpause_ 3y agoSeems irrelevant if the people getting the job by cheating are considered high performers getting promotions
- JohnFen 3y agoA person who cheats is a person who cannot be trusted. Trustworthiness is one of the things employers are looking for.
- falcolas 3y ago> Trustworthiness is one of the things employers are looking for. And yet rarely reciprocated beyond what's explicitly required by law. </ Tangent >
- doctorh 3y agoIf you're willing to go to such lengths in order to be deceptive, it reflects very badly on your moral character. I wouldn't want to work with people like that and we should not reward that kind of behavior.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI am not particularly fond of this kind of moral flexibility. It's lying and the person found ways to justify themselves. This isn't the kind of person I can trust to be honest with me, they don't seem reliable either. Thanks, but no thanks.