3 ms·
This should be the norm and not something that is laughed at. For an absurd comparison, who would hire a programmer based on counting the LOC in his github repo
by kriro 12y ago
This should be the norm and not something that is laughed at. For an absurd comparison, who would hire a programmer based on counting the LOC in his github repository :D
Then again I suspect that quite a few companies don't read the code of applicants either and prefer job interview testing of sorts.
I wouldn’t mind phone screening either. Ask the candidate to name his best/worst paper beforehand and discuss it over the phone (alternatively pick one without the candidate knowing it beforehand). Talk about methodology/his science theoretical baseline and where he thinks the field is headed.
- lazyjeff 12y agoThe current hiring process already does this over 2 days of 1-on-1 interviews with over half the faculty. Those faculty can ask whatever questions they'd like (talking about specific papers and methods are very common). But there are a lot of smooth talkers who aren't very productive, but can market themselves well in an interview. So looking at actual published work is also important. Given the choice between pure interview, versus counting the number of peer-reviewed publications in top conferences/journals, I'd most certainly pick the latter. In the worst case, you'd get someone who can get a lot of work done and published, versus someone who can talk about "big" problems and sound confident.