6 ms·

Perhaps drifting slightly OT, but this is a good example of why I'm not a fan of the current trend to make the "any questions for us?" section of interviews eva

Perhaps drifting slightly OT, but this is a good example of why I'm not a fan of the current trend to make the "any questions for us?" section of interviews evaluative. I get the theory, that good people ought to ask smart questions, but it feels trivially hackable the same way all those stupid brain teaser questions from '90s interview processes were. In other words, professional interviewees - the kind of people who memorise answer books, question lists, etc. - will outperform people who are smart and skilled but don't approach things in exactly the way the scoring checklist expects. (Bonus points if you penalise people for not asking about something which was easily discoverable from Glassdoor, industry contacts or even your own company website.)

shikoba 7y ago
> the kind of people who memorise answer books, question lists, etc. - will outperform people who are smart and skilled If people who just memorize can outperform smart people, it just means that the one conducting the interview is not really smart, and so incapable of recognizing expertise.
- TopHand 7y ago
  As someone who has had far more failures at evaluating candidates than successes, I find it very hard to wade through the BS in a meeting that lasts an hour or two. The strangest people I've met seemed normal for that short of time. I usually have to work with someone for up to six months to get a real feeling of their ability to adjust to new situations, learn new technology, and strength of work ethic.
  - shikoba 7y ago
    That's what I saw my whole life. People conducting interview don't know how to spot BS and fraud.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > If people who just memorize can outperform smart people, it just means that the one conducting the interview is not really smart, and so incapable of recognizing expertise. No, it means that interviewing is a lousy way to select people and it's full of bias. We know this. We know that interviewing doesn't select the best candidate.
  - shikoba 7y ago
    > it's full of bias My comment was not saying the opposite. > best candidate I never was talking about best candidate.

shikoba 7y ago

> the kind of people who memorise answer books, question lists, etc. - will outperform people who are smart and skilled If people who just memorize can outperform smart people, it just means that the one conducting the interview is not really smart, and so incapable of recognizing expertise.

TopHand 7y ago
As someone who has had far more failures at evaluating candidates than successes, I find it very hard to wade through the BS in a meeting that lasts an hour or two. The strangest people I've met seemed normal for that short of time. I usually have to work with someone for up to six months to get a real feeling of their ability to adjust to new situations, learn new technology, and strength of work ethic.
- shikoba 7y ago
  That's what I saw my whole life. People conducting interview don't know how to spot BS and fraud.
DanBC 7y ago
> If people who just memorize can outperform smart people, it just means that the one conducting the interview is not really smart, and so incapable of recognizing expertise. No, it means that interviewing is a lousy way to select people and it's full of bias. We know this. We know that interviewing doesn't select the best candidate.
- shikoba 7y ago
  > it's full of bias My comment was not saying the opposite. > best candidate I never was talking about best candidate.