> I'm curious your target have access to Google.com during your "interview"?
No, of course they don't. The idea is to see how well they think without being able to "just google it", so when they're tackling a problem nobody has tackled before, they aren't completely lost.
> Also what is going to happen to your hazing process when people start walking in with Google glass?
Probably they'll get asked to take them off, much the same as you might do to a candidate who walked in using a cellphone.
> If your canned intelligence test questions gave been recorded and indexed aren't you going to feel a little silly?
Candidates are told that the interviews are confidential. And no, I wouldn't feel silly if people recorded the questions and put them on an internet. It would be kind of a warning sign if we were embarrassed about them - the reason they're confidential at the moment is the same reason you can't look up upcoming exam papers on the internet.
> If a company is using f2f interviews to "weed" out candidates...
What on earth is a job interview for if not to reject some candidates? It's kind of a negative way of looking at it, but that is exactly what they're there for; to weed out candidates who are good (they must be at least adequate to get that far) but not good enough at the moment.
I'm not even gonna start on the last paragraph. Goodness knows nobody, especially Google, have a perfect interview process, but comparing it to eugenics is a little hysterical.
Umm, a common practice in the US in the 1930s at state fairs was to take IQ tests in order to become informed about your "feebleness" so as to aid you in your decision and fitness for marriage and procreation. In some jurisdictions, you could not enter into marriage if you were "feeble-minded." [0]
Most Americans don't realize there were several programs of enforced, mandatory sterilizations of the "feeble" as part of the social eugenics craze in the US. Faribault, Minnesota was a pretty active center of such activity.
Anyway, I think the comparison is apt and illustrative. Using "intelligence" measures to quantify someone for something entirely irrelevant to the task being tested for. In the first case "thinking on your feet" questions and professional software engineering and in the second procreating and raising children free from genetic defect. Hopefully with a little reflection you will see the connection too.
Whew. Good to know, I'm glad you cleared that up. I'm assuming they also are not racist because that is part of the analogy carried to illogical extremes too, right?
You mention that the interview process is confidential and thus immune from recording/playback. Is that true? Do candidates sign something? In any case, I think your allusion to academia is interesting ("same reason you can't look up upcoming exams"). Isn't this entirely the wrong model for forecasting future job performance and the main complaint of most people about the undergraduate university system ("learn" in order to pass the test)? The original comment even mentions failure to "cram" prior to the interview as an indicator of insufficent enthusiasm.
Anyway, I think if a candidate came into an interview and needed google or stackoverflow or whatever to function, I would provide that as a resource and would use it as an opportunity so as to judge the dependence and quality of their workflow because it is not extraordinary to see how everyone (even brilliant geniuses I know!) use these resources on a daily basis. I don't think I would deny someone access to prescription medications affecting cognitive function/enhancement either nor could I even do so legally. How on the one hand can you use internet contributions (well-reputed blog posts, open source contributions, active social media following, etc) as positive evidence of candidate desirability and also at the same time view using same as negative?
I guess I would could care if I was for example screening someone that as part of their duties they were expected to say represent me speaking at a conference or that the work product was extremely confidential (something which would necessarily require curtailing access on the job).
Finally I have to imagine in the very near future if the current trend of viewing "internet access" as an universal human right continues and it becomes even more of a basic enabling technology of the human experience, denying someone access during a job interview is going to become a dicey proposition the same as not providing accomodations for and not taking into account the cost of say wheelchair access, etc is today. The irony of Google denying access to the internet during a job interview is not without some comedic value.
> I'm curious your target have access to Google.com during your "interview"?
No, of course they don't. The idea is to see how well they think without being able to "just google it", so when they're tackling a problem nobody has tackled before, they aren't completely lost.
> Also what is going to happen to your hazing process when people start walking in with Google glass?
Probably they'll get asked to take them off, much the same as you might do to a candidate who walked in using a cellphone.
> If your canned intelligence test questions gave been recorded and indexed aren't you going to feel a little silly?
Candidates are told that the interviews are confidential. And no, I wouldn't feel silly if people recorded the questions and put them on an internet. It would be kind of a warning sign if we were embarrassed about them - the reason they're confidential at the moment is the same reason you can't look up upcoming exam papers on the internet.
> If a company is using f2f interviews to "weed" out candidates...
What on earth is a job interview for if not to reject some candidates? It's kind of a negative way of looking at it, but that is exactly what they're there for; to weed out candidates who are good (they must be at least adequate to get that far) but not good enough at the moment.
I'm not even gonna start on the last paragraph. Goodness knows nobody, especially Google, have a perfect interview process, but comparing it to eugenics is a little hysterical.