So uh you guys/girls have n=7 samples of people in this FAANG group, and you’re using this to get coefficients for one of the regressions. Then for the next regression for the FAANG people making it a cut further, you probably only have 3 observations that regression?
So I think the norm here is to show “summary stats” style of data, e.g. a table that says “For the FAANG applicants, of these 7 made it). I think this table would be better.
Basically, a regression model doesn’t add a lot, with this level of data.
Also, at this extremely low amount of data, I’m unsure, but there might be weird “degree of freedom” sort of things, where due to an interaction, the signs/magnitudes explode/implode.
Can you share your code for the regressions that made this table?
Basically, a regression model doesn’t add a lot, with this level of data
Yes, I agree that this is the conclusion of the piece, but I feel like you are implying that this means the methodology was flawed?
We aren’t trying to do some broad scientific analysis, we are just practically trying to identify ways that we can speed up our hiring process. And given that we do, in practice, have a relatively small number of people applying to each round, we are (apparently) not able to use automated methods to identify the most promising candidates with high accuracy.
(Maybe my stats/prob/econometrics is rusty, feel free to stomp this comment)
Yeah, you guys have a 94% pass rate for one dataset you use in one regression.
So you could only be getting any inference from the literally 3 people who failed for the screening interview.
So, like, in a logical, “Shannon information sense”, that is all the info you have to go with, to get magnitudes and statistical power, for that particular regression. Right?
So how are you getting a whole column of coefficients for it?
Yeah, the point of the screening interview is mostly for the candidate to ask questions. I endorse the belief that we should be measuring programmers through programming tests instead of interviews (i.e. the pass rate of the screening interview should be very high), but I go back and forth on whether the screening interview should come first or second.
Yes, raising the bar would make the interviews more useful. This is a good thought that makes a lot of sense to me.
I think what you said makes sense and is logical.
Since I’m far away and uninformed, I think I’m more reluctant to say anything about the process and there could be other explanations.
For example, maybe Ben or his team wanted to meet with many applicants because he/they viewed them highly and cared about their EA activities beyond CEA, and this interview had a lot of value, like a sort of general 1on1.
The “vision” for the hiring process might be different. For example, maybe Ben’s view was to pass anyone who met resume screening. For the interview, maybe he just wanted to use it to make candidates feel there was appropriate interest from CEA, before asking them to invest in a vigorous trial exercise.
Ben seems to think hard about issues of recruiting and exclusivity, and has used these two posts to express and show a lot of investment in making things fair.
So uh you guys/girls have n=7 samples of people in this FAANG group, and you’re using this to get coefficients for one of the regressions. Then for the next regression for the FAANG people making it a cut further, you probably only have 3 observations that regression?
So I think the norm here is to show “summary stats” style of data, e.g. a table that says “For the FAANG applicants, of these 7 made it). I think this table would be better.
Basically, a regression model doesn’t add a lot, with this level of data.
Also, at this extremely low amount of data, I’m unsure, but there might be weird “degree of freedom” sort of things, where due to an interaction, the signs/magnitudes explode/implode.
Can you share your code for the regressions that made this table?
Yes, I agree that this is the conclusion of the piece, but I feel like you are implying that this means the methodology was flawed?
We aren’t trying to do some broad scientific analysis, we are just practically trying to identify ways that we can speed up our hiring process. And given that we do, in practice, have a relatively small number of people applying to each round, we are (apparently) not able to use automated methods to identify the most promising candidates with high accuracy.
(Maybe my stats/prob/econometrics is rusty, feel free to stomp this comment)
Yeah, you guys have a 94% pass rate for one dataset you use in one regression.
So you could only be getting any inference from the literally 3 people who failed for the screening interview.
So, like, in a logical, “Shannon information sense”, that is all the info you have to go with, to get magnitudes and statistical power, for that particular regression. Right?
So how are you getting a whole column of coefficients for it?
No, “This model predicts whether all invited applicants (N=85) would pass the screening interview.” So it’s 45⁄85.
Yes, understood, thanks, I was just confused.
Also, it does seem that, at least ex post, they might benefit from raising the bar a bit on this round.
Yeah, the point of the screening interview is mostly for the candidate to ask questions. I endorse the belief that we should be measuring programmers through programming tests instead of interviews (i.e. the pass rate of the screening interview should be very high), but I go back and forth on whether the screening interview should come first or second.
Yes, raising the bar would make the interviews more useful. This is a good thought that makes a lot of sense to me.
I think what you said makes sense and is logical.
Since I’m far away and uninformed, I think I’m more reluctant to say anything about the process and there could be other explanations.
For example, maybe Ben or his team wanted to meet with many applicants because he/they viewed them highly and cared about their EA activities beyond CEA, and this interview had a lot of value, like a sort of general 1on1.
The “vision” for the hiring process might be different. For example, maybe Ben’s view was to pass anyone who met resume screening. For the interview, maybe he just wanted to use it to make candidates feel there was appropriate interest from CEA, before asking them to invest in a vigorous trial exercise.
Ben seems to think hard about issues of recruiting and exclusivity, and has used these two posts to express and show a lot of investment in making things fair.