4 ms·
I feel like this data is a small piece of the age long debate about hiring methods and competence/success indicators. There's been a lot of data about how even
by jayhuang 12y ago
I feel like this data is a small piece of the age long debate about hiring methods and competence/success indicators.
There's been a lot of data about how even people who think they are experts at finding good candidates are really no better than someone flipping a coin.
How then, if the line between "strong/less strong" candidates are so blurred, does Aline draw the line between "strong/less strong" herself? Isn't the way she splits the candidates' resumes also part of the exact thing she's trying to measure?
> "...then even if my criteria for whether each resume belonged to a strong candidate wasn’t perfect, the results would still be compelling"
- itsdrewmiller 12y agoI don't think you actually demonstrate this statement: > if the line between "strong/less strong" candidates are so blurred It is hard to tell prospectively whether someone will be a good programmer. It is not too difficult to tell retrospectively. (Any research that tries to measure competence/success indicators must be using something as its dependent variable, right?) The line you quote is specifically about the fact that resumes could be meaningful even if her competence assignments were not. Resumes seem to fail at that test as well. The biggest threat to validity would probably be that different people will be good/bad developers in different environments, and that this effect is very strong. Then each reviewer could be good at selecting for success in their own company, but they would only agree with each or with aline to the extent that their environment was similar to that of other companies or the ones that aline placed those engineers at. I am pretty comfortable rejecting this theory out of hand myself.