> p.s. top-posting is nasty. My bad, I was addressing your entire response, should have included more inlines.
- jake On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Jerry B. Altzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 2008-04-14 15:37 Jake McGraw said the following: > > > > I wasn't out to dissuade anyone from utilizing some kind of pseudo > > code testing, I'm just trying to offer an alternative point of view, > > the receiving end of interviews (interviewee if you will). > > > > Certainly your viewpoint is valid, and valued. > > > > > In my, admittedly limited experience, I've found company interviews > > that start, contain, or end with, "Hi! Here's a computer / piece of > > paper, you'll have 45 minutes to complete this exercise consisting > > almost entirely of php.net/[insert function name here]", represents a > > company on the path to fail, one which I ended up in because I didn't > > know any better, two I rejected offers from. > > > > Yes, well, that's NOT what we're talking about. But those companies do > exist, and it behooves you to understand what they're thinking. And also > consider the whole fizzbuzz > (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000781.html) problem. > > > > > Here's my point of view: if you (as a recruiter) can come up with > > nothing better than a rehash of references and a test of memorization > > as the gateway for a new hire, then what kind of quality can I expect > > in the rest of the company? Just as everyone here is putting the > > > > Well, gee, it could be that the HR guy is somewhat divorced from the actual > development team; or that he's the first gateway in; or that he's a > recruiter from a firm and not the actual principal at all, and uses the > results for many of his clients! > > > > > emphasis on finding the right candidate, weeding out the weak ones, > > I'd like to offer the idea that maybe each candidate is trying to find > > the right company, and that puts you (the interviewer) on the spot. > > > > That's all well and good from both sides: if you wouldn't like it here, > it's far more likely you'll spend your time looking for your next position. > I always open the floor to questions from the interviewee; what he/she > *asks* us is often about as enlightening as how he/she answers us. > > > > > I'm not trying to leave you with the impression that Millennials are > > ingrates (compared to what, Gen-Xers?), but that there are many > > options available to us, applying for a job is trivial thanks to the > > internet/head hunters, and supply (of us) is limited. I think that you > > > > In fact, the triviality of application is a sword that cuts both ways: > because of it, people have had to develop these semi-automated methods of > separating wheat from chaff because so many people use scattershot methods > of applying for positions, rather than apply for something appropriate. > > > > > would be doing your company a disservice if you didn't consider this > > before giving a candidate a test that makes them reconsider their > > choice to apply (or even showup) by insulting their intelligence. > > > > I, personally, have told recruiters and/or hiring managers: "I don't take > written tests" when I applied for positions. At that time, at my stage in > life, if I wasn't talking to a principal, or my CV didn't stand on its own, > I could pass on the job. That was my decision, and I'm sure that I missed > out on a few good opportunities. Maybe I was just being a prima donna. > However, I paid my dues a few times, and I've got the references to back > myself up, so I can take that chance. > > **HOWEVER**, were I applying for some entry-level position, I'd expect to > be tested on the basics, perhaps *even with a rudimentary written test*, and > that any company that DIDN'T was showing lack of due diligence (read: > malfeasance). The industry is rife with these stories: dailywtf posts them > almost daily ("Tales from the Interview"), _Peopleware_ devotes a whole > chapter to it ("Audition"). > > The written test that André originally posted was flawed in implementation, > but totally sound in theory. It merely needed refining (and maybe not even > that much). Remember: it is meant as a very very gross filter, just to > totally weed out the completely incompetent who make it past your HR > department or cursory scan at a CV. > > I said it before and I'll reiterate it: yes, doing this kind of pre-testing > might make me miss out on hiring the next RMS or Joel Spolsky, but I have to > weigh that against other very compelling needs (like if I spend two days > interviewing only 5 candidates, I have lots two days of other work that I > need to do for clients, etc.). > > > > > > > - jake > > > > //jbaltz > -- > jerry b. altzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.jbaltz.com > thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe. > _______________________________________________ > New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List > http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > > NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online > http://www.nyphpcon.com > > Show Your Participation in New York PHP > http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php > _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
