
The Hiring Post (2015) - mmt
https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/
======
jasonshen
"You have to design a test, But even the flimsiest work-sample outperforms
interviews, so the effort pays dividends immediately. create a scoring rubric,
and iterate. But even the flimsiest work-sample outperforms interviews, so the
effort pays dividends immediately."

My cofounder and I believe so strongly in this idea that we started an entire
company meant to level-up the tech industry's hiring process.
([https://www.headlightlabs.com](https://www.headlightlabs.com))

We've designed a series of concrete and practical technical challenges,
rubrics with established criteria that's visible to candidates, and a
consistent process for evaluating submissions. Candidate's get constructive
feedback and companies get a fast, fair tech screen.

~~~
paulcole
How do you prevent cheating?

~~~
jasonshen
Great question. It hasn't come up as a problem so far but given that the
problems are pretty open-ended (interact with an API and display the results
in the browser) it's a lot more obvious when you've copied someone else since
there's so many possible ways to do this.

We also ask candidates to submit a writeup and the expectation is that they'll
discuss their solution with the company in the next stage, so if someone
cheats, it'll be pretty obvious in that call.

~~~
paulcole
Why can’t a candidate just have somebody else do the problem and the follow up
call? How do you verify identity?

~~~
ubernostrum
Do me a favor and give me your answer to this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164600)

~~~
paulcole
I’m not sure if you meant to link to something relevant, but I’ll reply
anyway.

It should be obvious but having someone use a computer and talk on the phone
is much less involved than showing up in person and using an earpiece. Also,
I’m not sure how awkward these people normally are, but the in-person faker
would be astoundingly obvious.

~~~
ubernostrum
_but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious_

Yet, based on your previous comment, you think the person _will_ be able to BS
their way through a conversation with you about code they didn't write and
don't understand. I don't see how you can hold both of those positions
simultaneously.

~~~
paulcole
The person who stands in and does the exercise also does the follow up call.

~~~
ubernostrum
Do they also do the on-site interview?

Look, I've done a lot of interviews as the interviewer. This attitude that we
have to design processes as if there are five hundred quintillion octillions
of googolplexes of novemdecillions of cheating lying "fake coders" for every
one qualified person is not rooted in reality, nor is the level of paranoia
you're displaying. There are perfectly reasonable processes you can use which
_will_ catch a cheater if you actually get one. But designing a process
entirely around the assumption that everyone is a cheater trying to lie their
way into your company is just not useful.

------
JonasJSchreiber
After a few months of "running the gauntlet" myself, I found this to be an
extremely enlightened and reflective article on the interviewing process. It's
valuable advice that hiring managers would be wise to consider. Once I am in
position to make the recommendation at my next job, I will do so whole-
heartedly

------
abeyer
Anyone happen to know what the "$80 in books" mentioned were (or are now if
it's still a thing)?

It's probably an useful exercise to come up with that list of books you would
like every applicant to have read before interviewing, even if you don't
provide them, and seeing others' lists would be interesting.

~~~
wallflower
From the original March 2015 discussion, here is a version of the list,
retrieved from the Wayback Machine:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170411010702/https://www.amazo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170411010702/https://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/R2EN4JTQOCHNBA)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9160014](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9160014)

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9159557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9159557)

