4 ms·

I think that the problem entirely rests with #1. First, consider that this central third party already exists: Universities. I have a PhD, so I should be hire

I think that the problem entirely rests with #1. First, consider that this central third party already exists: Universities. I have a PhD, so I should be hired over someone who has only a BS and we should both be hired over someone who never went to college. Except a large number people on HN who do hiring don't agree with this ranking (and rightly so - I'm only an average programmer). Therefore, we need a new organization to do this certification. We got that new organization. Microsoft did certifying with the MCSE. Of course, I've heard MCSE used more often as a punchline than as a job requirement, so that hasn't helped us too much, either. Thus, we move into the tests companies actually perform while hiring. Here, we still have the problem that no one agrees on the smartness test. On the one hand, puzzles that I've considered trivial logic puzzles that have been declared obscure memorization tests by people who are certainly more qualified than I am. On the other hand, I've seen programmers who literally couldn't tell a hard drive from a network card breeze through interviews on the basis of rote memorization. Even if we could find a good rubric for grading programmers, we'd need to sell the businesses on this test. I agree that hiring is completely broken and that outsourcing it to a company who makes it their expertise is pretty much the future of business. Honestly, the reason I've written so much here is because I've spent a lot of time thinking about this idea, too, and these are the issues I've run into. However, until problem #1 is solved, I don't see this going forward.

seiji 13y ago
Universities Sorry, but bollocks. I've passed a few chemistry courses over the years. I should not be allowed anywhere near any lab equipment these days. Course knowledge is transient. I've seen undergrad CS seniors write while(1){} loops in multithreaded programs because they forgot mutexes existed. I've seen CS PhDs copy/paste PHP code online to get a website together because their focus area was compiler register allocation. I go through periods of time where I use Python extensively. Then I don't use it for a year. It doesn't mean I "don't know" Python, but it takes a while to get the APIs and libraries loaded back into my head (especially if I've been using two or three or four other languages in the interim). By "certify ability" I don't mean anything as egregious as an MCSE or CCIE (or even a droll CCNA), but more a pre-level of interviews to weed out people who are literally a waste of time. The "certify" process would have different tracks depending on intended job target. A Programmer's Programmer would be get a heavily algorithm set of tasks/questions/live code tests while a devops person would have a practical set of questions with a few programming-ish things thrown in for completeness. A central, trusted, certification can weed out inept interviewers too. Everybody knows some interviewer who asks really obscure questions (or simple questions worded poorly) from the back of an algorithms textbook. Then, they use the confusion of the interviewee as an excuse to rate them lower in the post-interview team meeting. Crap like that is unacceptable.
- rprospero 13y ago
  I agree with you completely that the universities aren't the answer here. I might have been good at 68k Assembler back when I was taking my computer architecture course, but I haven't touched it since the Lord of the Rings films came out. I wasn't trying to say that Universities were any good at this job, but that they're an example of how a central trusted certification agency can fail. I don't, however, see how it's going to get rid of the the bad interviewers. Since the idea is to do a pre-interview to screen out the dead weight, it means that the individual firms will still need to do a more specific interview. Thus, we'll still have the same local interviewers asking the same questions about trigraphs in C. The problem isn't just that these people suck at giving interviews - it's that they believe that they're GREAT at it.
- derefr 13y ago
  > I've seen undergrad CS seniors write while(1){} loops in multithreaded programs because they forgot mutexes existed. That sounds more like they memorized mutexes, but never actually learned them. Learning is what happens when you're forced to tackle a hard problem with a [new skill]-shaped hole. It doesn't happen when you read a textbook and then regurgitate it onto an exam. Universities (at least at the undergrad level) aren't actually very good at imbuing learning.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  You didn't read the parent very carefully before calling it "bollocks". Parent sets up each idea and gives the reason it's not the solution. Here's what he says about using university degrees: "Except a large number people on HN who do hiring don't agree with this ranking" So you agree with him, but insult him. The whole point of the parent's post is that a "central, trusted certification" is very hard to achieve in practice.

seiji 13y ago

Universities Sorry, but bollocks. I've passed a few chemistry courses over the years. I should not be allowed anywhere near any lab equipment these days. Course knowledge is transient. I've seen undergrad CS seniors write while(1){} loops in multithreaded programs because they forgot mutexes existed. I've seen CS PhDs copy/paste PHP code online to get a website together because their focus area was compiler register allocation. I go through periods of time where I use Python extensively. Then I don't use it for a year. It doesn't mean I "don't know" Python, but it takes a while to get the APIs and libraries loaded back into my head (especially if I've been using two or three or four other languages in the interim). By "certify ability" I don't mean anything as egregious as an MCSE or CCIE (or even a droll CCNA), but more a pre-level of interviews to weed out people who are literally a waste of time. The "certify" process would have different tracks depending on intended job target. A Programmer's Programmer would be get a heavily algorithm set of tasks/questions/live code tests while a devops person would have a practical set of questions with a few programming-ish things thrown in for completeness. A central, trusted, certification can weed out inept interviewers too. Everybody knows some interviewer who asks really obscure questions (or simple questions worded poorly) from the back of an algorithms textbook. Then, they use the confusion of the interviewee as an excuse to rate them lower in the post-interview team meeting. Crap like that is unacceptable.

rprospero 13y ago
I agree with you completely that the universities aren't the answer here. I might have been good at 68k Assembler back when I was taking my computer architecture course, but I haven't touched it since the Lord of the Rings films came out. I wasn't trying to say that Universities were any good at this job, but that they're an example of how a central trusted certification agency can fail. I don't, however, see how it's going to get rid of the the bad interviewers. Since the idea is to do a pre-interview to screen out the dead weight, it means that the individual firms will still need to do a more specific interview. Thus, we'll still have the same local interviewers asking the same questions about trigraphs in C. The problem isn't just that these people suck at giving interviews - it's that they believe that they're GREAT at it.
derefr 13y ago
> I've seen undergrad CS seniors write while(1){} loops in multithreaded programs because they forgot mutexes existed. That sounds more like they memorized mutexes, but never actually learned them. Learning is what happens when you're forced to tackle a hard problem with a [new skill]-shaped hole. It doesn't happen when you read a textbook and then regurgitate it onto an exam. Universities (at least at the undergrad level) aren't actually very good at imbuing learning.
robotresearcher 13y ago
You didn't read the parent very carefully before calling it "bollocks". Parent sets up each idea and gives the reason it's not the solution. Here's what he says about using university degrees: "Except a large number people on HN who do hiring don't agree with this ranking" So you agree with him, but insult him. The whole point of the parent's post is that a "central, trusted certification" is very hard to achieve in practice.