3 ms·

Coding interviews are proxies for IQ and/or work ethic. If you're good at coding interviews you're either reasonably intelligent, reasonably hardworking, or som

Coding interviews are proxies for IQ and/or work ethic. If you're good at coding interviews you're either reasonably intelligent, reasonably hardworking, or some combination of the two. They're not supposed to represent what you do on the job. They're just a screen for people incapable or unwilling to pass them. It's also easier to objectively evaluate coding interview performance compared to "softer" interviews, which is helpful to reduce bias in hiring decisions. It is not an accident that coding interviews became the norm. Many of the most successful engineering organizations in the world are known for their coding interviews. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're an ineffective tool.

cratermoon 3y ago
SAT scores are the same thing. They measure an arbitrary quantity, allegedly a good proxy for real ability. News flash: some people test well but under perform, others test poorly but perform well. > objectively evaluate coding interview performance compared to "softer" interviews, which is helpful to reduce bias in hiring decisions. No, because those coding questions are themselves biased towards people who have the same experiences as those asking them. It's exactly the same as IQ and SAT tests: the bias is hidden in "objective" results. Men outscore women by an average of 37 points on the math section, and 7 points on the reading section. Asian students score the highest on average, with white students trailing them by 22 points on average, and black and hispanic students trailing white students by an average of 50 points. Finally, students who receive need based aid score an average of 20 points lower on both sections of the test. These results are held up as "proof" that white men are better than women of color. > It is not an accident that coding interviews became the norm. It's true. They became the norm because they allowed organizations to hide bias under cover of "objectivity" > Many of the most successful engineering organizations in the world I wonder how much more successful engineering organizations that didn't bias against applicants that score poorly on these tests would do. Unfortunately, we don't have a control group, so crowing about how great this or that company has done when comparing them to organizations with similar biases doesn't provide much insight.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  Differences in outcomes across race and sex are not indications of bias. There are cultural and historical differences between groups that explain different average performance. Anyone suggesting that these differences are proof of racial superiority are ignorant and racist. And the suggestion that coding interviews are biased is insane. Everyone has access to leetcode. Virtually everyone can buy a copy of Cracking the Coding Interview. It's the one portion of the interview that doesn't rely on having the right history or circumstances. If you work hard or are naturally gifted then you can succeed on the coding interview. Regardless, the author's point stands. It doesn't matter whether you think coding interviews matter. As long as they exist, you'll have to play along to get certain jobs. Selfishly I should stop trying to convince potential competition to embrace them.

cratermoon 3y ago

SAT scores are the same thing. They measure an arbitrary quantity, allegedly a good proxy for real ability. News flash: some people test well but under perform, others test poorly but perform well. > objectively evaluate coding interview performance compared to "softer" interviews, which is helpful to reduce bias in hiring decisions. No, because those coding questions are themselves biased towards people who have the same experiences as those asking them. It's exactly the same as IQ and SAT tests: the bias is hidden in "objective" results. Men outscore women by an average of 37 points on the math section, and 7 points on the reading section. Asian students score the highest on average, with white students trailing them by 22 points on average, and black and hispanic students trailing white students by an average of 50 points. Finally, students who receive need based aid score an average of 20 points lower on both sections of the test. These results are held up as "proof" that white men are better than women of color. > It is not an accident that coding interviews became the norm. It's true. They became the norm because they allowed organizations to hide bias under cover of "objectivity" > Many of the most successful engineering organizations in the world I wonder how much more successful engineering organizations that didn't bias against applicants that score poorly on these tests would do. Unfortunately, we don't have a control group, so crowing about how great this or that company has done when comparing them to organizations with similar biases doesn't provide much insight.

nosefurhairdo 3y ago
Differences in outcomes across race and sex are not indications of bias. There are cultural and historical differences between groups that explain different average performance. Anyone suggesting that these differences are proof of racial superiority are ignorant and racist. And the suggestion that coding interviews are biased is insane. Everyone has access to leetcode. Virtually everyone can buy a copy of Cracking the Coding Interview. It's the one portion of the interview that doesn't rely on having the right history or circumstances. If you work hard or are naturally gifted then you can succeed on the coding interview. Regardless, the author's point stands. It doesn't matter whether you think coding interviews matter. As long as they exist, you'll have to play along to get certain jobs. Selfishly I should stop trying to convince potential competition to embrace them.