[praneshp]

> You will never know what someone is capable of in a few hours.

I guess the goal is to fine tune your interviewing process based on how past candidates turned out.

[Clubber]

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the people doing this are collecting zero data to analyze to see if this new process improves or hurts the number of good candidates they actually hire.

The irony of it is putting processes like this is actually turning away good talent, but they wouldn't know, because they aren't doing any analysis; they just read an article somewhere.

[toast0]

You can certainly do analysis on the hires you make, but it's pretty hard to analyze the hires you didn't make. Very few will come back and reinterview.

[Clubber]

Sure you can, but my point was I'll bet most people don't. They just get this crap from an article they read because they don't think about all the ramifications, or don't think about it much at all.

[praneshp]

Sorry about the late reply, but you are wrong about "collecting zero data". Without saying too much I can assure you at least one company does.

[qudat]

For some businesses, they aren't hiring a ton of developers, so doing an analysis on 2-5 data points isn't going to yield anything significant.

[Clubber]

Why would the introduce such a radical break from traditional interviewing without testing to see if it works?

[qudat]

> Why would the introduce such a radical break from traditional interviewing without testing to see if it works?

Has "traditional interviewing" undergone any scientific study for determining if it "works"?

[Clubber]

I don't know, I'm sure there is something on Google if you are interested.