4 ms·
This is a personal anecdote about something orthogonal to the article. A few months ago, I wrote an exam to get an AWS certification. Before the test, I had to
by hluska 3y ago
This is a personal anecdote about something orthogonal to the article. A few months ago, I wrote an exam to get an AWS certification. Before the test, I had to take the adjudicator on a virtual tour of my exam space. My space was small so I had to do near gymnastics to give the supervisor the sight lines that she needed.
Solutions to this already exist and I find it somewhat heard to believe that a company like Pearson knows so much more than Amazon.
I wonder if this is a situation where companies know there is cheating, perhaps even have ways to identify it but cheating just isn’t treated as a strong enough negative signal in the hiring process to be worth fighting.
- munificent 3y agoSoftware engineer interviews are hard because simultaneously: 1. They are adversarial where the interviewer is trying to tell if the interviewee is cheating and evaluate their performance. 2. They are trying to, as much as possible, emulate the team-oriented work environnment where the relationships are cooperative. So the interviewer is trying to be on the interviewee's "side" as much as possible to see what it would be like to work with them. These two goals are in opposition, which is one of the reasons why SE interviewing is so hard to do well. If you make the interview more explicitly adversarial like examinations are, you do a better job of weeding out cheaters. But you also bias towards candidates that are comfortable with adversarial interactions and you lose vital signal about their cooperation ability.