5 ms·
Did I say it was "data"? The closest anyone has come to "data" on this (that I know of) is Google, in that experiment where they just hired people at random. Bu
by throwaway71958 9y ago
Did I say it was "data"? The closest anyone has come to "data" on this (that I know of) is Google, in that experiment where they just hired people at random. But they decided to ignore the results and stick to the soul crushing 5 hour interviews anyway, so data did not change the relevant people's minds.
- solipsism 9y agoLooking up the actual experiment, you're completely misrepresenting the conclusions. Here: https://www.google.com/amp/business.financialpost.com/entrepreneur/four-things-google-found-that-didnt-matter-in-the-hiring-process/amp https://www.google.com/amp/business.financialpost.com/entrep... These were their conclusions: 1. The ability to hire well is random. This is referring to individuals, not the system as a whole. 2. Forget brain-teasers. Focus on behavioral questions in interviews, rather than hypotheticals 3. Consistency matters for leaders 4. Grades don’t predict anything about who is going to be a successful employee. School grades, that is. So, stop making stuff up from behind your throwaway account.
- throwaway71958 9y agoOuch, "making stuff up". That's harsh, my man. Thus far I've made absolutely nothing up in this thread, or indeed in any others under this account. And you're using a PR puff piece written by Google HR to discount years of personal experience that I'm sharing here. You're free to not believe me, but let's not level accusations without evidence, OK?
- solipsism 9y agoAnd yet you fail to provide a non-puff-piece link to the study you're talking about?