3 ms·
> On the plus side big tech knows interviews are often a function of luck How does this not mean "we hire at random"? It's especially egregious after explainin
by lucianbr 2y ago
> On the plus side big tech knows interviews are often a function of luck
How does this not mean "we hire at random"? It's especially egregious after explaining all the reasons you can't give a candidate extra time, because you're so precise and consistent. Which is it? Consistency and luck are opposites.
- downWidOutaFite 2y agoIt's not quite random, the goal is to bias the errors towards false negatives (bad rejection) than false positives because bad hires are so expensive to recover from.
- pixelatedindex 2y agoI don’t know if it’s “we hire at random” more so “we hire based on intelligent guesses/calculated risk”. It’s not completely random because there’s a resume and a rigorous process.
- kasey_junk 2y agoA better way to phrase it is that big techs outcomes in hiring are i distinguishable than a random processes would be.
- arcticbull 2y agoIt’s not randomness it’s a bias towards consistency and avoiding false positives at the expense of false negatives. There are more qualified candidates than roles, generally speaking. If that changes then I suspect process will change too, as the cost of a false negative will become higher.