3 ms·
Well I think this is common knowledge. Nobody in their right mind would hire on experience alone, but it is a fairly safe starting point that's typically follow
by guynamedloren 14y ago
Well I think this is common knowledge. Nobody in their right mind would hire on experience alone, but it is a fairly safe starting point that's typically followed by more reliable measurements of skill.
Edit: very misleading title. After reading the post a second time, I realized you were referring to hiring based on experience on a specific platform, which is a bit silly, but yes, it happens.
- jasoncrawford 14y agoMy point is that people overvalue experience, relative to intelligence, and drive, and other components of raw talent.
- mercurial 14y agoUp to a point, but experience does serve as a filter. It's hard to measure intelligence and drive from a resume - it's hard enough to get a picture of actual experience. An important factor is what kind of experience we're talking about. Take an engineer with ten years of experience. After ten years, a qualified engineer should be fluent in a fairly large number of technologies in various capacities. On the contrary, somebody who has been writing CRUD PHP webapps at the same company for the last ten years might not be your first choice for a hire.
- travisp 14y agoThe research mentioned shows that the correlations are close to 0 even within similar work (there aren't many surgeons doing the equivalent of CRUD PHP webapps), which would imply that it's a filter that doesn't actually do you any good. I suppose you're arguing that the correlation is greater than 0 for an engineer and therefore it might be an effective filter. But how much greater? Particularly for industries where skill is important, using a marginally effective employment filter can significantly backfire.