

Should asking puzzle questions in technical interviews be illegal? - amichail

One could argue that such puzzles discriminate against certain groups of people without supporting research showing that such puzzle solving ability is necessary for programming.<p>So should such puzzles be illegal in technical interviews -- at least until the supporting research is done and widely accepted?
======
mrtron
Should asking content questions in technical interviews be illegal?

One could argue that such content questions discriminates against certain
groups of people without supporting research showing such memorizing ability
is necessary for programming.

So should such questions be illegal in technical interviews --- at least until
the supporting research is done and widely accepted?

~~~
amichail
Perhaps one reason why they ask puzzle type questions is because they don't
care so much about what content you know. You can learn on the job after all
if you are smart.

But that still ignores the issue about whether puzzle solving and programming
ability are highly correlated.

~~~
nostrademons
Probably moreso than most other things you could evaluate, including
programming itself. I'd argue that puzzle-solving is more closely related to
what you actually do as a developer than writing "reverse a string in-place"
exercises in C. After all, what are programming problems besides puzzles?

(Assuming you're working at a firm that actually _develops software_ , instead
of handing a template to some code-monkeys and telling them to use off-the-
shelf Microsoft or Java widgets and assemble them into something vaguely
resemblant. But the latter firms don't really use puzzles anyway. They hire
based on degrees and certifications.)

~~~
amichail
The point is this is just a guess. You need scientific experiments to
demonstrate this -- otherwise, it's potentially illegal to use puzzles in
interviews.

~~~
DougBTX
A guess seems like a reasonable standard of proof, the experiment is when you
hire them for a month to see if they can do the job. If that's illegal then
the laws are broken.

------
uuilly
Should any questions be illegal? We should be able to hire anyone we want for
whatever reasons. The market should then decide whether the questions were
right or wrong.

------
skippybosco
From my perspective it is less about the actual answer and more about the
process you use to get there.

Now granted I have read a few studies indicating that it is possible to derive
puzzles in such a way that to weed out certain demographics. One could argue
the same thing based on what college someone went to and when based on the
published numbers from that school and logical analysis. Should asking what
college you went to and when be illegal?

As it stands right now, "puzzle solving ineptness" is not one of the groups of
people protected by the equal opportunity act.

~~~
amichail
But it might be that older people are worse at these sorts of puzzles in which
case this would result in age discrimination.

Other groups may be affected as well.

------
karzeem
For hiring in the U.S., discrimination is legal if it's done on the basis of
what are called "bona fide occupational qualifications". This is the legal
principle that allows, say, police departments to reject people who don't meet
physical standards, or modeling agencies to reject people just because they're
ugly.

You could make a good case that success on puzzle questions has a decent
correlation with success as a programmer--that is, the ability to solve
puzzles is probably a BFOQ for programmers, so it's safe from a legal
standpoint.

------
plinkplonk
Any selection procedure can be said to "discriminate" against certain groups
of people. Do people need a certain height and weight to be good soldiers?
Many army recruitment systems have minimum requirements. Do you need an Ivy
LeagueMBA to be a highly paid consultant at McKinsey?

Questions like these often are about the questioner than anything else. If I
were to ask "Should it be illegal for McKinsey to demand an MBA from Harvard
before hiring people?" , it probably reveals more about my attitudes than
anything else.

    
    
     What made you consider such  an idea?  Any negative experiences with puzles in an interview? I am genuinely curious.

~~~
amichail
Although I come from academic background, I have lost all faith in computer
science. IMO, people are focusing on all the wrong things. Web 2.0 is a step
in the right direction. It's much more fun and creative than academia ever
was.

As you might guess, I don't think much of technical interviews, especially the
ones with puzzles.

~~~
queensnake
I have to say, I'm inspired by pg's whole idea that the ultimate test of what
you bring to society is what you can think up and build, and that barriers to
your doing just exactly that, have fallen much lower. I'm still freakin' abuzz
over that, together with the fact that there will probably soon be YC
imitators, and that YC itself will expand, to make that a reality. Currently
I'm contemplating 'which job to do, which would stall my career the least' (I
do need one for the short term), but in the medium term even, it may be
possible to work on exciting, possibility-busting ideas. Being that life is
short, I can't get over the possibility that this'll be the new modus
operandi.

This would be at the level of what the early internet hippies promised, way
back in the beginning :)

------
JeffL
It is illegal to administer an IQ test as part of the hiring process. Since IQ
is the #1 predictor of future job performance (See The Bell Curve), then I
imagine puzzle questions are just about the next best thing.

~~~
cmars232
IBM did exactly that when I interviewed with them in 1998. They give you a
battery of tests including:

A timed test of where you have to do a lot of boring math problems like long-
multiplication and division of large sums. I hate boring math, but figured I
didn't want to be an accountant, so I didn't stress out over it.

Another timed test where you're given character sequences, and you have to
guess what comes next. That was the one all us hackers in the group of
interviewees were bragging about after the test. "Oh yeah? I got through all
but the last two!", that sort of thing.

We were told our results were not a condition of employment (though this was
during the interview process) and they would be kept in our employee profiles,
but we couldn't ever find out how we did.

------
mynameishere
What should be illegal is silently judging the "coolness" or "good looks" or
"charisma" of a candidate. Because, in the real world, that's usually what
gets you the job.

------
smg
The Xobni guys ask a great puzzle if you interview with them. The puzzle makes
the whole interview process worthwhile. I hope they are still asking that
puzzle ;-)

------
antimattar
not only is puzzle/quiz/aptitude testing the future of job applications... I'd
throw in _conditioning_ (like the Suk doctors in Dune or the current
military). Talent will be rewarded much more when money isn't wasted on less
efficient, competent, dedicated and honorable people.

------
gojomo
This would be a good question for 'Regulatory Bureaucrat News'.

Or perhaps 'Vexatious Litigator News'.

But for 'Hacker News', not so much.

------
curi
discrimination should be legal. forcing you to hire someone you don't want to
isn't freedom.

~~~
Goladus
On discrimination laws:

<http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html>

You'll see a number of groups identified at various points. Lists of them
usually start with something like "race, color, religion..." These are known
as 'suspect classifications' and discrimination is often not possible except
where a suspect class is involved.

Suspect classes themselves have been defined by the Supreme Court via 14th
amendment rulings, and include specific criteria that determine what level of
scrutiny is applied to the law. If a victim is not a member of a suspect
class, then it will be very difficult to prove discrimination. (Though it can
happen, for example Gay Marriage in MA)

Companies have a great deal of freedom to 'discriminate'(defined in global
scope) in hiring practices, though their ability to 'discriminate'(defined in
legal scope) is limited for good reason.

(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I also don't think puzzle
tests should count as discrimination.)

~~~
curi
Most people think discrimination is bad. I agree with them. But just because
something is bad does not mean that it's correct to make a law against it. The
people who discriminate _disagree_ about whether discrimination is a good or
bad idea.

Disagreement should not be dealt with by force, it should be dealt with by
persuasion, (and with competition). The only exception is when force would
happen no matter what we do (ie, they want to assault or defraud someone, then
force takes place whether we stop them or not).

When people want to peacefully do things we think are bad, like discriminate,
or watch Desperate Housewives, or buy homeopathic medicine, the best thing to
do is leave them alone. Do we really want the Government monitoring and
judging our peaceful economic choices? The only thing at stake with
discrimination is it prevents cooperation between certain people. But so what?
I do not have a right to have others work with me; such things should be
purely voluntary. And there are still plenty of better, non-discriminating
people to work with.

