4 ms·

>I don't see how its different from in-person interviewing An in-person interview is a two-way conversation and costly (in time and energy) for both sides. It

by mapgrep 13y ago

>I don't see how its different from in-person interviewing An in-person interview is a two-way conversation and costly (in time and energy) for both sides. It is ideally a rich experience with a lot of infomation. What we have here is a call for a very short (1 minute) one-way look at the candidate, who is asked in incredibly vague terms to introduce themselves. IANAL but it seems like an attorney could make a case that such a short video with so little non-visual content -- no meaningful prompt, no real chance to show skill -- is a pretext for discrimination based on age or race or gender. Not that I'm saying it is, mind you, but asking for a video "introducing you" does suggest that the content of what the speaker says is incidental to who the speaker is. Particularly for a job that does not involve introducing yourself all the time (are these sales interns? receptionists?). Why not a prompt like "...introduce yourself and explain why you're interested in working for $COMPANY..."?

rdl 13y ago
I find the YC interview videos a lot better than solo videos because one of the most interesting data points is how the team seems to interoperate, which you can sort of get a sense of in a 1 minute video. It's a lot less of an argument in a solo process.
baddox 13y ago
> An in-person interview is a two-way conversation and costly (in time and energy) for both sides. It is ideally a rich experience with a lot of infomation. That's a valid point, but I don't think that discrimination laws say anything about the time and effort required by each party.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  Time and effort are being used here as evidence against wrongdoing, not as something inherently legal or illegal. Think "security footage confirming an alibi". Laws about murder say nothing (or very little) about security footage, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence. Suppose that it is illegal to discriminate by using information of type A and that the following media transmit the following types of information: In-person interview (IPI): A,B,C,D,E,F,G Vague video upload (VVU): A,B Cover letter + resume (CLR): B,H,I In this slightly oversimplified example, it would be illegal to request VVU+CLR because the only possible motive for requesting VVU+CLR instead of CLR would be to obtain information that was illegal to use.

by mapgrep 13y ago

rdl 13y ago

I find the YC interview videos a lot better than solo videos because one of the most interesting data points is how the team seems to interoperate, which you can sort of get a sense of in a 1 minute video. It's a lot less of an argument in a solo process.

baddox 13y ago

> An in-person interview is a two-way conversation and costly (in time and energy) for both sides. It is ideally a rich experience with a lot of infomation. That's a valid point, but I don't think that discrimination laws say anything about the time and effort required by each party.

jjoonathan 13y ago
Time and effort are being used here as evidence against wrongdoing, not as something inherently legal or illegal. Think "security footage confirming an alibi". Laws about murder say nothing (or very little) about security footage, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as evidence. Suppose that it is illegal to discriminate by using information of type A and that the following media transmit the following types of information: In-person interview (IPI): A,B,C,D,E,F,G Vague video upload (VVU): A,B Cover letter + resume (CLR): B,H,I In this slightly oversimplified example, it would be illegal to request VVU+CLR because the only possible motive for requesting VVU+CLR instead of CLR would be to obtain information that was illegal to use.