3 ms·
I’d say chances of getting busted are high as well. The invisibility of the window to common interview software won’t do anything mask candidates’ own suspiciou
by bartread 2y ago
I’d say chances of getting busted are high as well. The invisibility of the window to common interview software won’t do anything mask candidates’ own suspicious behaviour.
I was doing a 45 minute screener interview with a guy the other day who I could see kept glancing over at another window or screen as he was typing in code. Every couple of characters or so he was pausing looking over, then he’d type a handful more characters, then pause and glance again. He was typing incredibly slowly as well, like a character or two per second, even when he was typing. It was honestly a bit of a weird experience to watch unfolding. His solutions were spot on though.
I didn’t make an issue of it, partly because I already had other concerns as well. I can’t think of a situation where there’s anything to gain by getting into an argument with a candidate: I simply didn’t invite him to the next interview stage.
- herghost 2y agoGong back about 20 years we had to introduce a "pre-screening" interview for infosec roles because of the calbire of candidates we were getting through. They'd made it through the HR "sift" by having the right words on their CVs but we found that a huge majority of these candidates didn't know even entry-level basics. There was initially a "quick fire" round where we did some real basic definitions - Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, risk, etc, etc. Even back then candidates would hit us with the: "Hmm, great question" /tap tap tap tap [Wikipedia definition of confidentiality]
- OutOfHere 2y agoThat is completely ridiculous because the candidate could be looking at a relevant documentation page, which is fair game. Next time, try a voice interview.
- OutOfHere 2y agoGiven how poor and assumptive your logical reasoning is, the candidate is lucky for not working with you.
- emptiestplace 2y agoIf it's so poor, it should be pretty easy to explain why.
- OutOfHere 2y agoYes, but it should not be necessary to explain why. Just because a candidate is looking somewhere is very weak data to suggest that the candidate is cheating. I shouldn't have to say that the candidate could be looking at necessary documentation, or even at his own resume, or at the job description.