Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's a highly effective and quick disqualifier.

100% of those that couldn't do it are not qualified candidates.

Some of those that could do it are good candidates.

When you bring in someone that has a nice looking CV and experience and recommendations and you ask them a very basic question and they can't respond at all, it is a safe disqualifier. It also doesn't take six hours.




>Some of those that could do it are good candidates.

Looks like you edited your comment. In any case, that's a non-statement, as some is quite different from nearly all (i.e. 90%).


>100% of those that couldn't do it are not qualified candidates.

OP stated nearly the inverse: that 90% of those who can do it are qualified candidates.


So you discard 100% of those who can’t do it, knowing that 90% of the rest are qualified.


That's a different argument that gets us back to the original premise I disputed, so you're now just begging the question with numbers.

That is, your numbers are only valid if I accept the premise that I'm rejecting. I don't believe that 90% of people who can answer such a basic question are qualified.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: