(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.
(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.