3 ms·
Your post seems to employ circular logic. You're asking for evidence of one of your assumptions: > Failing one or two interviews isn't really indicative of any
by nilkn 13y ago
Your post seems to employ circular logic. You're asking for evidence of one of your assumptions:
> Failing one or two interviews isn't really indicative of anything.
- balls187 13y agoApologies for the logic fail. I'm asking for evidence that shows candidates who have routinely fail traditional software interviews, have gone on to be above_average -> exceptional in their careers. My hypothesis is that if traditional software interviews have systemic and endemic flaws--that is interviews produce there are a lot of false negatives, there would exist a large group of people who have failed continuously, but have yet gone on to be good-to-great elsewhere. Getting a no hire from one or two companies, would not classify a person as a "false negative", it could be (as others have mentioned) an issue with fit.