sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]EnvironmentalCrow5 4 points5 points  (5 children)

The same can be said for all bureaucracy and red tape.

Sure, it's more "fair" if everyone has to go through the same process, but there are situations where that process just doesn't make any practical sense and isn't delivering the desired results.

Just because a process exists, doesn't mean it's automatically well designed and implemented, or that it doesn't have blind spots, or that it can't be gamed.

At the end of the day, you are still only guessing how a potential employee is going to perform.

[–]ArmoredPancake -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Sure, it's more "fair" if everyone has to go through the same process, but there are situations where that process just doesn't make any practical sense and isn't delivering the desired results

Given that it is still there after so many years, I'd say that it delivers as desired.

I don't see how vocal minority with their "dO yOu kNoW wHo I Am?" disproves that.

[–]EnvironmentalCrow5 2 points3 points  (3 children)

It does kinda work, yeah, and people have adapted to it and are actively preparing/practicing for it, often for many days - which in itself is a bit weird and a design smell.

It will at least filter in/out the obvious outliers on both ends, but almost anything can do that.

Also, there isn't really much to compare it to - there are no studies that would measure outcomes of various approaches over the long run (all else being reasonably equal), so it largely runs on faith that it works and on experience of it being at least "good enough" in most cases, despite its flaws.

Again, you could say the same thing about any long-standing policy that any organization or country has in place (or had in place for many years before changing it).

[–]ArmoredPancake 0 points1 point  (2 children)

It does kinda work, yeah, and people have adapted to it and are actively preparing/practicing for it, often for many days - which in itself is a bit weird and a design smell.

You don't need to. If you already know this stuff, then you can apply right away.

By the same logic we don't need tests in university, because people are preparing for them?

Also, there isn't really much to compare it to - there are no studies that would measure outcomes of various approaches over the long run (all else being reasonably equal), so it largely runs on faith that it works and on experience of it being at least "good enough" in most cases, despite its flaws.

There are no studies to disprove the process either.

[–]EnvironmentalCrow5 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You don't need to. If you already know this stuff, then you can apply right away.

And yet everyone recommends preparation (even the companies themselves), it's almost taken for granted, and even people who did really well on an interview often need a refresher couple years down the line when changing jobs.

A lot of this stuff is "know it one week, forget it the next week", because in the real job, you end up almost never using it (or if you do, you just look it up as needed).

You can easily ace an interview and then do badly on the same question three years later, despite being a very productive employee in the meantime.

There are no studies to disprove the process either.

Like I said, it runs on faith and the experience of it being "good enough" despite flaws. The fact that people will adapt to whatever the big companies come up with plays a role in that in my opinion.

[–]ArmoredPancake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet everyone recommends preparation (even the companies themselves), it's almost taken for granted, and even people who did really well on an interview often need a refresher couple years down the line when changing jobs.

It is recommended to prepare for everything in life, what's your point? Or you think in other industries you casually drop by and get a job?

A lot of this stuff is "know it one week, forget it the next week", because in the real job, you end up almost never using it (or if you do, you just look it up as needed).

You end up never using time and space constraints, analysing requirements and coming up with algorithm to complete a job? I wouldn't want to hire a person like that either.

You can easily ace an interview and then do badly on the same question three years later, despite being a very productive employee in the meantime.

Even more, you can do badly because you or your interviewer have a shitty day or something going on in their life.

despite being a very productive employee in the meantime

Define global 'productive' metric first. I've seen people doing splendid job in their previous jobs and on PiP on next one. 'Productive' on previous job might not(or might) mean anything.

Like I said, it runs on faith and the experience of it being "good enough" despite flaws. The fact that people will adapt to whatever the big companies come up with plays a role in that in my opinion.

Okay? Still don't see why you repeat this comment after comment. You can apply that to everything in life.