NYCPHP Meetup

[Jake McGraw]

>  p.s. top-posting is nasty.

My bad, I was addressing your entire response, should have included
more inlines.

- jake

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Jerry B. Altzman <jbaltz at altzman.com> wrote:
> 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.).
>
>
>
>
>
> > - jake
> >
>
>  //jbaltz
>  --
>  jerry b. altzman        jbaltz at altzman.com     www.jbaltz.com
>  thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
>  _______________________________________________
>  New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
>  http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>  NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
>  http://www.nyphpcon.com
>
>  Show Your Participation in New York PHP
>  http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
>