>> The false negative/false positive question is more about the costs of hiring a "bad" engineer than how hard it is to find a "good" one.
I'm familiar with the argument. Erring on the side of caution is wise. Thinking that the current interview process saves you from this is stupid.
Gameable systems are won by people who focus on the game. They are not necessarily going to do well if the job requires something different
The current interview process is a GAME.
From the employer perspective, they can never be sure if they hired someone who memorized stuff for the interview or a really smart guy.
It's very similar to the current US election process. Everyone thought the forefathers made a rock solid constitution. The few cracks it had was fixed with amendments. Lo and behold, the only person who could make it to the top was the one who gamed the system and not someone with real merit.
Aren't the parallels strong?
P.S.: Not claiming Hillary is meritorious, but at least she's not one to make radical decisions without counsel
Downvoted. This thread is about interviews, not politics. There are more than enough political posts on the front page right now if you're in the mood for political commentary.
>> Gameable systems are won by people who focus on the game. They are not necessarily going to do well if the job requires something different
>> The current interview process is a GAME.
Exactly what I've been thinking about recently.
Isn't this true for a variety of things? The education system judging on the outcome of exam scores, elections, making money, marketing etc.
I wonder whether all this can be really be 'fixed'.
I'm familiar with the argument. Erring on the side of caution is wise. Thinking that the current interview process saves you from this is stupid.
Gameable systems are won by people who focus on the game. They are not necessarily going to do well if the job requires something different
The current interview process is a GAME.
From the employer perspective, they can never be sure if they hired someone who memorized stuff for the interview or a really smart guy.
It's very similar to the current US election process. Everyone thought the forefathers made a rock solid constitution. The few cracks it had was fixed with amendments. Lo and behold, the only person who could make it to the top was the one who gamed the system and not someone with real merit.
Aren't the parallels strong?
P.S.: Not claiming Hillary is meritorious, but at least she's not one to make radical decisions without counsel