|
Please let us know the questions employers should ask that only determine good hires from bad hires without unduly affecting any possible class of people.
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Please let us know the questions employers should ask that only determine good hires from bad hires without unduly affecting any possible class of people. "As an HR professional who we hired to help us figure this out, what do you think is the best way forward?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:There are plenty of job opportunities, sure, but only a certain subset of those are good jobs that lead to the advancement and productivity you're looking at. Not in my experience. There may be guaranteed-incredible opportunities out there, but I've never had one. I have had a lot of good jobs that let me work with some great coworkers and do fun things. I suspect the vast majority of jobs are middle of the road, and, to be a cliche, you'll get out you what you put in. It's a matter of taking charge of things that matter to you. If you're hired to update Wordpress sites, you can choose to just update Wordpress sites, or you can update Wordpress sites, install source control, and update the templates to HTML5. Even if your current bosses shoot you down, you'll have that experience of creating a proof-of-concept for your ideas, and future interviewers will appreciate your gumption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:It's cool that this is an abstract exercise that you don't give a poo poo about, but I was exactly mirroring your "less candidates THEY WOULD WANT" language. Like can I at least get a good faith reading? Eliminating the pool of working parents tosses out more good than bad. I didn't say "less candidates total" like you're implying here. Just to be clear, I always try to read others with the principle of charity. The mistake I thought it was possible you were making seems like an actual reasonable mistake a person could make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:It's cool that this is an abstract exercise that you don't give a poo poo about, but I was exactly mirroring your "less candidates THEY WOULD WANT" language. Like can I at least get a good faith reading? Eliminating the pool of working parents tosses out more good than bad. I didn't say "less candidates total" like you're implying here. They're only trying to hire one dev. If one good dev's resume still makes it to their desk then what's the problem, from their point of view?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:They're only trying to hire one dev. If one good dev's resume still makes it to their desk then what's the problem, from their point of view? Well, there could be a better dev. Or they could chuck out good devs and accidentally end up with a turkey. I'm not convinced most people have a surfeit of good devs at any level of actual experience to be honest, I dunno about new grads where there's nothing much to go on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
InevitableCheese posted:This'll probably sound really stupid but what are the chances of programming being automated and the field shrinking to non-existence within the next few decades? Reading books on A.I. and the Singularity make my shower thoughts go wild, especially now that i just got into the field. I think that even if we get a super smart, problem solving ai, which is not likely anytime soon, developer jobs will just move to interfacing with those a.I. You know how in video games like mass effect and whatnot, it's always one guy talking to Computer™? That's because if product managers were the ones talking to it, it would kill itself after trying to discern what the gently caress the pm means by "more engaging. You know, like, make it pop." For the thirteenth time. Can you imagine being a flawless person, interpreting things precisely with no error, and still being told you're wrong all the time? In short, the industry is still strong, don't worry. And if we do end up being replaced by computers, it'll be far enough away that we can all retire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
InevitableCheese posted:This'll probably sound really stupid but what are the chances of programming being automated and the field shrinking to non-existence within the next few decades? Reading books on A.I. and the Singularity make my shower thoughts go wild, especially now that i just got into the field. Check out what happened to Moores Law lately . Besides if there is a Singularity we are all equally hosed/blessed regardless of profession.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Well, there could be a better dev. Or they could chuck out good devs and accidentally end up with a turkey. You're operating off gut feel in your own opinion as much as they are. This is just one of many strategies hiring people try to get the best candidate. Don't like it? Apply somewhere else, you probably wouldn't have liked the work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
How important do you guys think time spent as previous job is in getting hired? Is it that much of a stigma if someone was at their dev job for 9 months but was interviewing elsewhere Because that's my situation now and i'm not really feeling shy about applying to as many jobs as possible (despite getting close to no interviews)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Please let us know the questions employers should ask that only determine good hires from bad hires without unduly affecting any possible class of people. The whole current interview process we have is an obfuscated IQ test. The goal is to higher intelligent, hard working people. What else could you want? IQ and personality tests would accomplish this, but that's illegal, so we have this stupid game we play where we try to hide this fact from ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:The whole current interview process we have is an obfuscated IQ test. The goal is to higher intelligent, hard working people. What else could you want? IQ and personality tests would accomplish this, but that's illegal, so we have this stupid game we play where we try to hide this fact from ourselves. And if you
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:The whole current interview process we have is an obfuscated IQ test. The goal is to higher intelligent, hard working people. What else could you want? IQ and personality tests would accomplish this, but that's illegal, so we have this stupid game we play where we try to hide this fact from ourselves. I haven't seen much overlap from 'higher intelligence' and 'hard working' in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Both IQ and personality 'tests' are 80% bullshit and 100% non-predictive of anyone's actual real-world productivity or culture fit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:The whole current interview process we have is an obfuscated IQ test. The goal is to higher intelligent, hard working people. What else could you want? IQ and personality tests would accomplish this, but that's illegal, so we have this stupid game we play where we try to hide this fact from ourselves. In the US, there is nothing illegal about using IQ tests in hiring. It's illegal to use one with disparate impact against protected classes, but there are plenty of well-known abstract intelligence tests that don't lean on whether someone can complete "jockey is to polo as oarsman is to..." The problem is that IQ tests have demonstrated pretty limited predictive power for whether someone's going to be a good employee. (I won't even get into the pseudoscientific garbage that is "personality testing," but some employers use that, too)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Considering the sheer amount of "I didn't need to study in school so I never developed any kind of work discipline" types I'm not sure filtering by intelligence is a good idea. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Hargrimm posted:Both IQ and personality 'tests' are 80% bullshit and 100% non-predictive of anyone's actual real-world productivity or culture fit. This rings true from what I've experienced. I had a manager that I got along with great, and our corp had us complete at least three different personality tests to help influence managerial methods. On every one of them we were the exact opposite types, that should have had the most conflict, but we've never had any trouble. gmq posted:Considering the sheer amount of "I didn't need to study in school so I never developed any kind of work discipline" types I'm not sure filtering by intelligence is a good idea. God, this was me for the longest time, but when I graduated I had such a hard time getting a job it kicked my rear end into gear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Grump posted:How important do you guys think time spent as previous job is in getting hired? Based on the first few weeks at my new job, I might be in a similar situation soon. Of course, I don't have any wiggle room to take time off to interview, so maybe not!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
I'm hoping to double my time spent per job each time I change. 1, 2, 4, 8, etc. Up to a reasonable limit of course. I sure as gently caress don't feel like jobs these days are stable enough for that, though. Especially if you're a vulnerable employee like a minority, older, or remote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Gildiss posted:I haven't seen much overlap from 'higher intelligence' and 'hard working' in my experience. There isn't one, but 'hard working' is near impossible to test for in the short term. IQ is easily tested. Space Gopher posted:The problem is that IQ tests have demonstrated pretty limited predictive power for whether someone's going to be a good employee. All other things being equal, you definitely want someone of higher IQ. IQ is the best predictor of long term success in life. Working hard is the 2nd best predictor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
So now that I'm wading into the waters of employment seeking, I got contacted by my first external recruiter. From reading these forums it seems that they're pretty resented more often than not. What are the kind of warning signs I should be looking for? Very new to all this, and feeling equal parts trepidation and excitement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:
Hmm, yes a test that discriminates against people who aren't rich white males is an accurate predictor of people being rich white males. Lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:There isn't one, but 'hard working' is near impossible to test for in the short term. Nah, that's the homework thing that's becoming popular. It's another filter that's easier to pass if you don't have a life but less unreasonable than having projects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Hmm, yes a test that discriminates against people who aren't rich white males is an accurate predictor of people being rich white males. Lol. Not sure where "rich white male" came into this, but what else do you want in employees other than them being intelligent and hard working? Maybe I'm the weird one, but I definitely don't want unintelligent lazy employees. I'm perfectly willing to believe "not-rich", "not-white", "not-male" people can be intelligent and hard working. Skandranon fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
IQ is an awful measure of intelligence. Also an awful predictor of success in life but let's stick to the basics now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:Not sure where "rich white male" came into this, but what else do you want in employees other than them being intelligent and hard working? Maybe I'm the weird one, but I definitely don't want unintelligent lazy employees. I'm perfectly willing to believe "not-rich", "not-white", "not-male" people can be intelligent and hard working. The problem is you're buying into two assumptions: That IQ tests are magically accurate, unbiased indicators of intelligence and that the kind of intelligence that IQ tests are supposed to indicate is directly proportional to one's skill as a developer. Neither of those things is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:Not sure where "rich white male" came into this, but what else do you want in employees other than them being intelligent and hard working? Maybe I'm the weird one, but I definitely don't want unintelligent lazy employees. I'm perfectly willing to believe "not-rich", "not-white", "not-male" people can be intelligent and hard working. IQ tests are biased as measures of intelligence so as soon as you start using them as a measure of intelligence you introduce bias.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
IQ tests aren't the ideal -- they were tweaked to even out the average score between men and women after original attempts created an intelligence test that men did better on. It's probably better to use something like the math section of the SAT. Also IQ tests are stable over time for individuals so it's measuring a real thing. It's not like your score for 18 holes of golf. Also IQ tests are biased in favor of minorities as long as you pick smart minorities like the Chinese, Ashkenazis, or Mensa members.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Yeah, you might say they're unfit for the purpose of a universal measure of intelligence because they are. E: and i'd put money on the score not being stable when plotted against hours since subject last ate Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Ah, the "smart minorities"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
sarehu posted:IQ tests aren't the ideal -- they were tweaked to even out the average score between men and women after original attempts created an intelligence test that men did better on. It's probably better to use something like the math section of the SAT. I feel like you're one step away from writing a manifesto
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Yeah, about how golf tournaments should be 144 holes over 4 days so that they're more of an athletic contest but also to reduce the effect of luck in deciding the winner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Also IQ tests are stable over time for individuals Nope. They tested Indian farmers who sell their harvest once a year. The month after payday they did ~10 points better on IQ tests than the month before payday the next year when they are under financial stress. And just priming lower-income people to worry about money before giving the test also reduced their score significantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Hargrimm posted:Nope. They tested Indian farmers who sell their harvest once a year. The month after payday they did ~10 points better on IQ tests than the month before payday the next year when they are under financial stress. And just priming lower-income people to worry about money before giving the test also reduced their score significantly. All that shows is that stress induces a cognitive load that negatively impacts cognitive performance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Hargrimm posted:Nope. They tested Indian farmers who sell their harvest once a year. The month after payday they did ~10 points better on IQ tests than the month before payday the next year when they are under financial stress. And just priming lower-income people to worry about money before giving the test also reduced their score significantly. That's about as good a rebuttal as saying IQ scores vary based on how tired you are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Easy to see who did an online IQ test and placed an undue amount of faith in the artificially inflated share-bait number they received.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:Easy to see who did an online IQ test and placed an undue amount of faith in the artificially inflated share-bait number they received. You mean I don't have an IQ of 250? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
CPColin posted:If you do get asked a system design question, don't do what the one guy did when I last sat in on an interview. We showed him an answered Experts Exchange question and asked how he would go about writing the system that showed that page. We left it vague so he could go into the data structures a Q&A forum would need or go into the HTML rendering framework he would use. Space Gopher posted:Lots of programming is already automated. Nobody hand-writes machine code, and not many people hand-write assembly, because we have compilers and interpreters to do the vast majority of that work for us now. You can see the same trend in lots of other places - 20 years ago, writing a web application probably meant banging protocol to a socket more or less directly. Now, we have automation that turns server-side objects into JSON or what have you automatically. And, instead of spending 2 hours waiting for a humongous C++ program to compile and burning the output to CD-ROM's for physical distribution, the DevOps are spending just as much time fiddling with build configuration and automating manual stuff. No lost jobs there either. I'm optimistic, because programming can't be compared to the industrial revolution where a sewing machine replaced 10 people. You cannot automate programming, because the whole point of programming is to automate something that was unknown before the idea was born, and you can't automate in multiple tiers, if you know what I mean. It would be like creating a machine that was able to create arbitrary sewing machines at the push of a button.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Pilsner posted:Just gotta say that if I were presented with Experts Exchange as an example in an interview question, I'd seriously wonder if these guys are stuck in the 00's or something. Who uses Experts Exchange these days? :P He was interviewing for a position at Experts Exchange. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Pilsner posted:Just gotta say that if I were presented with Experts Exchange as an example in an interview question, I'd seriously wonder if these guys are stuck in the 00's or something. Who uses Experts Exchange these days? :P The "languages simply moved on" by automating drudge work that isn't necessary to do by hand in most cases. C# lets you do more complex things, faster, than writing code in a lower-level language because it takes care of an enormous number of simple, solved problems for you. That's the definition of automation. If you want to make an analogy to sewing machines, making stitches and winding bobbins maps to memory management and all the stuff the standard libraries do for you - it's essential to getting the job done, but not necessarily part of the higher-level pattern abstraction that you really care about. People who don't keep up with the trends in automation do tend to get drummed out of software development. There's not a lot of demand for someone who can write x86 assembly against the IBM PC BIOS these days, unless they're in a hyperspecialized field where those skills are still useful. There are plenty of people who stick with older, more manual, tools and methods as the industry moves on around them. If they're perceptive and have decent people skills, they move to management and PM roles, where the specific tools don't matter as much as processes and methods. If they're a stereotypical grumpy dev, they get put on maintaining legacy applications, and as those applications get decommissioned, they get laid off. Eventually there aren't many legacy systems to maintain, and they end up in an involuntary retirement. You're right that, in the foreseeable future, we're not going to end up in the specific 19th century England scenario where traditional software artisans are replaced by low-paid unskilled workers doing backbreaking work in the data mills. Still, automation is incredibly relevant to the industry, and it's important for people at the beginning of their career to understand how it's played out over the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:08
|
|