4 ms·
So you yourself has just given an example how easy it is to temporarily get good at "test-filling", by simply preparing for that. The question is whether a giv
by gf000 4mo ago
So you yourself has just given an example how easy it is to temporarily get good at "test-filling", by simply preparing for that.
The question is whether a given test measures anything relevant - did your friend become a better programmer for doing 6 weeks of leetcodes? E.g. what kind of experience did he gain about large code bases and how to handle those? Continuing your analogy, would you fly with a pilot who drilled on taking off a bunch of time, but never practised flying in a storm?
I'm not saying leetcodes or exams are useless, but Goodhart's Law apply.
- dr_hooo 4mo agoRegardless of the content, a test filters for people willing to put in the work to pass. All else being equal, given two candidates, where one has passed a test and another one who didn't bother, the first one sends a stronger signal to the potential employer. It's still worth discussing if the particular test is ideal, but the answer IMO is not to say let's remove tests in general.
- WalterBright 4mo agoRight on. Instead of complaining about the test, he did what was necessary to ace it. He's the kind of person I'd want to hire.
- collingreen 4mo agoIs that what the sat is supposed to measure, in your opinion? Do you worry that would heavily skew toward people who didn't have to work over people who didn't have as much available time to train to a particular test? Does that even matter?