4 ms·

I don't think replacing an interview that fails older people that instead fails younger people is a good solution.

by saagarjha 2y ago

lmz 2y ago
I thought the point of affirmative action was that being unfair is ok if it is to compensate for a prior unfairness.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  We don’t typically do affirmative action by picking interview questions that make things harder for some candidates as opposed to others, though. We consider some questions to be easier for, say, men to answer (“tell me about a time you were asked to demonstrate leadership”) but we seek to remove that bias rather than asking questions that solely focus on things that can only be answered by those who experienced bias (e.g. “tell me about a time you experienced racism that affected your work” is not likely to be an interview question).
lapcat 2y ago
What do you think is a good solution?
- bluGill 2y ago
  Number one: there is research on how to interview find it and read it. All comments I've seen here give no indication that the commenter is even aware of it. I'm aware the research exists, but I have not read it (my company trained me in interviewing, and the class mentioned research but I haven't checked to see if it is the latest research that I'm trained in) If the above doesn't answer your question, then different questions for different levels. You should know if you are hiring a junior, mid, or senior engineer. (you may have different levels), and ask them different questions.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > If the above doesn't answer your question You misinterpreted my question, because I was asking what saagarjha thinks, not what anyone else thinks.
  - b20000 2y ago
    one thing I found interesting is the observer or hawthorne effect. in short, people perform differently when observed doing a task. this means that simply by observing people while they are coding, you might make them perform differently, and come to a conclusion they are not able to code, while if you did not observe them, they might have done well. the reasoning is that it's ok to pass on excellent candidates. as a business owner I find that a real problem. I would prefer the best, not just people who had time to grind leetcode and rapidly crank out solutions to standard problems you can find online. i think it would be better if interviews erred on the side of caution and preferred to let people through especially if they have experience. you can always fire them if they don't perform. there is no job security in the US anyway.
    - sqeaky 2y ago
      It is my experience that caution during the hiring process means skipping on possibly excellent people to accidentally prevent hiring a dud. There are plenty of both on the job market most of the time. In practice firing people is hard at most companies, even if there are no laws protecting people in an individual situation. In principle it can be easy but generally a manager who is in a position to evaluate performance doesn't also usually have unilateral authority to fire someone. And a technical manager telling someone that this person can't code or is disruptive on a team often can't communicate that to the managers with firing authority. This can be out of hesitance, budget concerns, or legitimate communication skills on either parties count. So the hiring practices that most of the companies I have worked at tend to skip on possibly excellent candidates in preference of definitely excellent or at least definitely decent candidates. This is mostly about risk aversion then gain maximization.
      - lapcat 2y ago
- saagarjha 2y ago
  This is Hacker News I’m on here to complain not find solutions

I don't think replacing an interview that fails older people that instead fails younger people is a good solution.

lmz 2y ago

I thought the point of affirmative action was that being unfair is ok if it is to compensate for a prior unfairness.

saagarjha 2y ago
We don’t typically do affirmative action by picking interview questions that make things harder for some candidates as opposed to others, though. We consider some questions to be easier for, say, men to answer (“tell me about a time you were asked to demonstrate leadership”) but we seek to remove that bias rather than asking questions that solely focus on things that can only be answered by those who experienced bias (e.g. “tell me about a time you experienced racism that affected your work” is not likely to be an interview question).

lapcat 2y ago

What do you think is a good solution?

bluGill 2y ago
Number one: there is research on how to interview find it and read it. All comments I've seen here give no indication that the commenter is even aware of it. I'm aware the research exists, but I have not read it (my company trained me in interviewing, and the class mentioned research but I haven't checked to see if it is the latest research that I'm trained in) If the above doesn't answer your question, then different questions for different levels. You should know if you are hiring a junior, mid, or senior engineer. (you may have different levels), and ask them different questions.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > If the above doesn't answer your question You misinterpreted my question, because I was asking what saagarjha thinks, not what anyone else thinks.
- b20000 2y ago
  one thing I found interesting is the observer or hawthorne effect. in short, people perform differently when observed doing a task. this means that simply by observing people while they are coding, you might make them perform differently, and come to a conclusion they are not able to code, while if you did not observe them, they might have done well. the reasoning is that it's ok to pass on excellent candidates. as a business owner I find that a real problem. I would prefer the best, not just people who had time to grind leetcode and rapidly crank out solutions to standard problems you can find online. i think it would be better if interviews erred on the side of caution and preferred to let people through especially if they have experience. you can always fire them if they don't perform. there is no job security in the US anyway.
  - sqeaky 2y ago
    It is my experience that caution during the hiring process means skipping on possibly excellent people to accidentally prevent hiring a dud. There are plenty of both on the job market most of the time. In practice firing people is hard at most companies, even if there are no laws protecting people in an individual situation. In principle it can be easy but generally a manager who is in a position to evaluate performance doesn't also usually have unilateral authority to fire someone. And a technical manager telling someone that this person can't code or is disruptive on a team often can't communicate that to the managers with firing authority. This can be out of hesitance, budget concerns, or legitimate communication skills on either parties count. So the hiring practices that most of the companies I have worked at tend to skip on possibly excellent candidates in preference of definitely excellent or at least definitely decent candidates. This is mostly about risk aversion then gain maximization.
    - lapcat 2y ago
saagarjha 2y ago
This is Hacker News I’m on here to complain not find solutions