|
|
|
|
|
|
by rando289
3633 days ago
|
|
|
> it's not enough to just look within the 'hire' cohort. Enough for what? Why not? They specifically have a "score", not just a hire / no hire decision. Sure it would be better, but you don't make any convincing argument why their analysis is not valuable. > designed to be a Classifier, typically tuned with an emphasis on having a low false positive rate. classifier of what? Why is classifier capitalized? I don't think so. |
|
|
Let me throw out some made up numbers as an example.
Company X hires 100 people out of 500 applicants.
If only 30% of them perform well, you might argue the interview process is rubbish.
However, if you can test and show that of the "un-hired" 400 only 5% would perform well, then clearly the interview process is better than picking at random.
This is why just looking at hired performance is not indicative of whether the process works - because the task was not just to predict good performers but to predict a better rate of good performers than a random sample of applicants.