3 ms·

This can't have been recent. Or perhaps it was and they violated the law. A standard IQ test is probably quite good at assessing if you'll be good at a programm

by arjie 3mo ago

This can't have been recent. Or perhaps it was and they violated the law. A standard IQ test is probably quite good at assessing if you'll be good at a programming job but it is also quite illegal unless it has passed through a battery of compliance paperwork - which it actually cannot pass because it would require the output of IQ tests to be race-equal and they cannot be both an IQ test and race-equal. This is literally a Title VII violation.

tptacek 3mo ago
I'm a broken record about this, but no, it's not illegal to administer IQ tests in white-collar employment, and it doesn't take a battery of compliance paperwork to do so. This is an Internet myth.
- arjie 3mo ago
  Well, you and rahimnathwani up there have convinced me. Now I have to go around and deprogram everyone I said this to...
  - tptacek 3mo ago
    It's a really widespread myth, hard to fault anybody for believing it. There's even a kernel of truth to it (Griggs).
    - arjie 3mo ago
      Would you mind helping me understand what degree the truth is? More here about my confusion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49171999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49171999
- Terretta 3mo ago
  Not only Internet. It's held view among risk-management-heavy enterprises, some of which might even insist, beyond the claim in this thread, that "any anbility assessment is illegal". To be fair, maybe someone in HR read it on Facebook or LinkedIn, showed risk management a (doesn't have to be real) legal risk they could head off. So they ban people evals, even for skilled trades. Not even brain teasers or IQ. Just: can applicant FizzBuzz? Verboten! This is how, in a mass job application world, enterprises end up with >80% of coders, all making 6 figures, that can't FizzBuzz. A hack to get the enterprise to assess is find the third party SWE test providers to big brand logos the board recognize, brands under the same risk governance / regulatory regimes, and ask "what do we know they don't?" First, the board know and respect those brands. Second, the question makes the board consider what they think about those in charge of the failing capabilities internally. This is something now both easy for the board to discuss, and obviously done by good references. Ok, let's try empirical evals. Countless such broken record warranting beliefs clanging around 100k employee enterprises. McKinsey, BCG, PWC, KPMG -- all they need to do to justify 8 figure bill for the year is undo any one of them.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3mo ago
    I can believe that. When we (devs) implemented an interactive design/coding screening questionnaire, we had an uphill battle to get HR to approve us giving it to candidates. Apparently, the company had an internal rule of "No tests." We got past it by convincing them that it didn't have pass/fail criteria: it was an evaluation of their thought process and programming ability.
rahimnathwani 3mo ago
"illegal unless it has passed through a battery of compliance paperwork" "This is literally a Title VII violation." Griggs v. Duke Power Co. held that "The [Civil Rights] Act [of 1964] does not preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures, but it does proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance." Why do you believe that prior documentation is required, and that the absence of such documentation would make the testing illegal?
- inigyou 3mo ago
  > Why do you believe that ... Check his blog and find out. I particularly enjoyed the part where the best way to improve public transport is to keep poor people out, not to increase frequency.
  - rahimnathwani 3mo ago
    Is there a specific page on his blog that answers my question? His suggestions for improving public transport are not relevant to this discussion.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      You might alternatively prefer the ones about how health insurance never denies care, Luigi Mangione was a bad guy, or Democrats have made it profitable to be a victim.
      - rahimnathwani 3mo ago
        From your descriptions they don't seem relevant to this discussion.
        inigyou 3mo ago
        It identifies a certain type of person.
- 3mo ago

by arjie 3mo ago

tptacek 3mo ago

I'm a broken record about this, but no, it's not illegal to administer IQ tests in white-collar employment, and it doesn't take a battery of compliance paperwork to do so. This is an Internet myth.

arjie 3mo ago
Well, you and rahimnathwani up there have convinced me. Now I have to go around and deprogram everyone I said this to...
- tptacek 3mo ago
  It's a really widespread myth, hard to fault anybody for believing it. There's even a kernel of truth to it (Griggs).
  - arjie 3mo ago
    Would you mind helping me understand what degree the truth is? More here about my confusion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49171999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49171999
Terretta 3mo ago
Not only Internet. It's held view among risk-management-heavy enterprises, some of which might even insist, beyond the claim in this thread, that "any anbility assessment is illegal". To be fair, maybe someone in HR read it on Facebook or LinkedIn, showed risk management a (doesn't have to be real) legal risk they could head off. So they ban people evals, even for skilled trades. Not even brain teasers or IQ. Just: can applicant FizzBuzz? Verboten! This is how, in a mass job application world, enterprises end up with >80% of coders, all making 6 figures, that can't FizzBuzz. A hack to get the enterprise to assess is find the third party SWE test providers to big brand logos the board recognize, brands under the same risk governance / regulatory regimes, and ask "what do we know they don't?" First, the board know and respect those brands. Second, the question makes the board consider what they think about those in charge of the failing capabilities internally. This is something now both easy for the board to discuss, and obviously done by good references. Ok, let's try empirical evals. Countless such broken record warranting beliefs clanging around 100k employee enterprises. McKinsey, BCG, PWC, KPMG -- all they need to do to justify 8 figure bill for the year is undo any one of them.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3mo ago
  I can believe that. When we (devs) implemented an interactive design/coding screening questionnaire, we had an uphill battle to get HR to approve us giving it to candidates. Apparently, the company had an internal rule of "No tests." We got past it by convincing them that it didn't have pass/fail criteria: it was an evaluation of their thought process and programming ability.

rahimnathwani 3mo ago

"illegal unless it has passed through a battery of compliance paperwork" "This is literally a Title VII violation." Griggs v. Duke Power Co. held that "The [Civil Rights] Act [of 1964] does not preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures, but it does proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance." Why do you believe that prior documentation is required, and that the absence of such documentation would make the testing illegal?

inigyou 3mo ago
> Why do you believe that ... Check his blog and find out. I particularly enjoyed the part where the best way to improve public transport is to keep poor people out, not to increase frequency.
- rahimnathwani 3mo ago
  Is there a specific page on his blog that answers my question? His suggestions for improving public transport are not relevant to this discussion.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    You might alternatively prefer the ones about how health insurance never denies care, Luigi Mangione was a bad guy, or Democrats have made it profitable to be a victim.
    - rahimnathwani 3mo ago
      From your descriptions they don't seem relevant to this discussion.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        It identifies a certain type of person.
3mo ago