4 ms·
Maybe the point was about specifically "trivial" questions. The article's author may have been attempting to draw an analogy between the questions we ask in int
by lukeasrodgers 12y ago
Maybe the point was about specifically "trivial" questions. The article's author may have been attempting to draw an analogy between the questions we ask in interviews, and asking a doctor to state the normal range for human body temperature (e.g.), which probably only happens once during early-stages of training.
- et2o 12y agoI think that is a possible interpretation of this sentence, but I'm not sure that I agree with it in the larger context of the piece. In the preceding paragraph, he states that applicants are expected to know "the latest RB tree research." In the following paragraph, he states that applicants are asked "technical minutiae." These examples to me don't seem to imply he thinks that "trivial" questions are being asked in interviews. The entire piece seems to argue that questions which are too difficult are being asked in order to unfairly weed out engineers who cannot answer them, which seems to me to be the opposite of trivial. To contrast, he explicitly used physicians as an example where occasional questions (which are 'trivial') have to be answered early in training in order to be licensed, a statement which I submit is false. There doesn't seem to be a corollary either stated or implied that physicians are otherwise asked nontrivial questions when they are not asked trivial questions.