I agree with you. There are all sorts of biases that come into play at interviews that often have very little to do with getting the right person to match the job and whether they can even do the job.
There are interviewers that want someone "like them" that might, perhaps, expect your braindump of technical knowledge to match theirs, there's primacy bias (comparing every candidate to the first one interviewed), recency bias (comparing everyone to the last person interviewed), there's the halo affect (one positive answer overshadows all negative answers), the horns affect (one negative answer overshadows all positive answers), and there's unconscious discrimination. So there are definitely good people that get passed over during the interview process. Unfortunately, if you don't actually know the person or know of the person, there's really no other way. Mistakes in the interviewing process are often made, even when the person answers all the questions correctly they can still be a disaster. And these mistakes can just as easily be made by professional recruiters, who often suffer the same biases as everyone else. The problem is really when you get someone that isn't a match. It is disastrous because it is a huge waste of time and money spent finding out the person isn't a fit. It is also disastrous because you will now need to find someone else to fill that position. And finally, it disastrous to the person themselves because they could have missed opportunities where they could have excelled in something else where they would have been a better match. So you don't really want to hire a person that thinks they're an "expert" that aren't really expert. It can make or break a project, and when it's your money on the line... On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Scott Barnes <scott.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm still stumbling my way through a psychology degree (hah weak attempt > at an appeal to authority lol) but I'm more and more convinced that > "technical interviews" are a form of projection less about means testing a > persons' potential / abilities. Some folks just have extremely poor working > memory while others have excellent ones but on the whole the ability for > them to regurgitate the exact location of where logic lies within the .NET > framework is really moot. Hell, I think i could probably put the .NET > program managers themselves into the same process and i'd wonder if they > would come out unscathed and more over what purpose does it really serve? > > If someone can memorise the entirety of ASP.NET MVC but fails to apply > the same logic in say Mono Subset then do they really know .NET or do they > just know a subset of .NET. What if they could provide coverage on > everything .NET up and until LINQ or Entity Framework? is that still .NET > pass or fail? In that they've effectively illustrated they can grasp or > comprehend the primitives required to progress with .NET but in the end > have poor recall abilities? > > In my interview process what I typically look for the most is appetite for > puzzles. You're an engineer, you're not meant to walk in with answers > you're supposed to walk in with enough foundation pieces to find answers, > trick with interviews is to then test the foundation... its why stupid > questions like "Why are manhole covers round" are legendary... its an open > question that has only one true answer (because Ninja Turtles need to get > in / out of them) but lends itself to creative / critical thinking. > > Technical are fine but if they are more targeted at foundation level > points ...ie "inside pseudo code, write the usage of a pointer being passed > in out of two separate layers and then same thing but a copy instead" - who > cares if the person writes this in python, you now have an indicator marked > out on their ability to understand how memory works which in turn is really > what you want to know at the end of the day. > > When people lie in their CV"s they are an "expert" don't be quick to > punish, as what you're likely seeing unfolding is someone who's got the > confidence and ambition to fight for that title - so in a way, use that, > feed that behaviour and you'll likely come away with a seasoned warrior. If > after 1 - 3 months they are an empty vessel, well you still can say "Sorry, > the tribe has spoken, thanks for coming". Only a fool would assume that a > new hire is productive in the 1-3 month timelines anyway, as thats just not > how it actually unfolds (regardless of skill level). > > my 25c. > > > --- > Regards, > Scott Barnes > http://www.riagenic.com > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bec C <bec.usern...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's what recruitment agencies typically ask for on a CV. I know how >> hard it can be when recruiters look for an "angular expert" but the only >> angular experience you have is some online videos. Hard to compete. Many >> devs lie on the CV actually to get the job, sometimes it works. >> >> >> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016, Tony Wright <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would find it a dubious stat, and certainly wouldn't rely on it. >>> >>> It only indicates your perception of where you are and may have no basis >>> in reality. >>> >>> Best leave it out and wait for those employers that think it means >>> something to request it from you. >>> >>> Better employers will be able to gauge where you are from your history >>> and clever questioning. >>> >>> T. >>> On 7 Jun 2016 3:49 PM, "Tom P" <tompbi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What do the seniors here look for on a CV? I've been told by a few >>>> people I should be giving myself a score out of 10 for competency in a >>>> particular language/technology but I find it quite hard to do that and have >>>> it actually mean anything. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2016 at 10:22, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had a tough time down there too. Everywhere seemed to want an >>>>>> AngularJS "expert" when I was looking. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh hell! I'll never work again -- *GK* >>>>> >>>> >>>> >
