NYCPHP Meetup

[Jerry B. Altzman]

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.).

p.s. top-posting is nasty.

> - jake

//jbaltz
-- 
jerry b. altzman        jbaltz at altzman.com     www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.