3 ms·
the idea is sound. create a basic standardized test targeted at tech/engineering jobs. not actually SAT -- operated by a vendor like The College Board. There
by tonymet 2y ago
the idea is sound. create a basic standardized test targeted at tech/engineering jobs. not actually SAT -- operated by a vendor like The College Board. There are plenty of standardized test operators
- renewiltord 2y agoThat’s what Triplebyte planned on. The truth is I don’t trust anyone else to run evals.
- tonymet 2y agoyou're right there are quality issues, some probably deliberate. but the screening cost for companies is eye watering so something should be done.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> The truth is I don’t trust anyone else to run evals. It's a common sentiment. But compare https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/belief-in-the-unstructured-interview-the-persistence-of-an-illusion/5BBA77932EF22EBEAA1E8020126A1925 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decisio... . ("People predicting the future performance of college students state that interviewing the students aids prediction, although in fact the interviews make predictions less accurate.")
- renewiltord 2y agoWell, the people who read that are welcome to try that and outcompete me in the market. Triplebyte still exists.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoWhen I'm interviewing, I'm putting about 30% of the weight towards "would I enjoy working with this person on a daily basis?", but in the context of technical discussions. Standardized testing won't be able to replicate it.
- tonymet 2y agoyou're not allowed to discriminate
- ge96 2y agoIs that discrimination? Somebody can en an annoying prick regardless of their background.
- tonymet 2y agoIf the candidate is a protected class and they are rejected for "cultural fit" it will be an easy case for EEOC to raise a discrimination case. This is effectively how Harvard was rejecting Asian applicants. They created a "personal fit" / cultural fit quality that Asians scored low on . Supreme Court found this to be discrimination. It doesn't matter if you are truly discriminating, it matters how well you have tangible evidence of the employee not meeting the qualifications for the role.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoDiscriminate against... a personality that will negatively impact the team dynamics? It's not that easy, to be honest, as every team has its own requirements.
- tonymet 2y agowould you be able to document this negative fit in an impartial way when rejecting a protected class?
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago> would you be able to document this negative fit in an impartial way when rejecting a protected class? Likely. But haters gonna hate, and lawyers gonna sue.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
- Etheryte 2y agoThis largely misses what an interview is all about, save for entry level positions.
- tonymet 2y agogiven the in-person interview is at the end of the funnel by a factor of 500-1000, standardized testing might even open up opportunity for under represented candidates. Think of how poor the screening process is at the recruiter & CTS (left side) of the funnel, and how many false negatives there are . If you could offer standardized test at that level, you may be able to keep viable candidates in the funnel longer.
- krisoft 2y agoI don’t think that the suggestion is that the standarised test is the only filter. It is merely one out of many.
- el_benhameen 2y agoWould certainly make it easy for employers to differentiate themselves by saying “well, at least we don’t do THAT”.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y agoInterviewing fads are set by these large companies that have the problem of systematically evaluating many thousands of candidates. A standardized test is all they want. Then they could do the rest like college admissions, and at a fraction of the cost.