[pier25]

I'm fine with the "traps" mentioned. I know I would pay attention to those things even if I was looking at many job applications and I would expect anyone I'd hire to do the same.

As for "talking about life" I think it's a great idea. Many people ITT think it's about finding buddies, it's not. It's about getting a reading of the person and be able to make a better decision. This goes both ways, the candidate will also know what type of person he will be working with.

[astura]

What sort of non-(illegal)discriminatory reason would you consider someone's life plans in a hiring decision? And it is really worth the legal risk of asking this question?

[pier25]

It's not really about life plans or discrimination, it's about getting a sense of what the person is like outside of the professional skills and experience. Everyone brings extra baggage when getting into a job.

Does he/she have interests outside of the tech world? Maybe contributes to open source projects? Maybe likes learning new things constantly? Etc.

I've been hiring people for almost 20 years for my company, working as a manager in other people's companies, or sharing a project with other freelancers. It's undeniable the chemistry between team members is an important factor.

It also works the other way around, for the candidate to evaluate what kind of person his/her next boss will be like.

[astura]

>what the person is like outside of the professional skills and experience

Not relevant as long as they are professional and capable at work. Just sounds like a (poor) justification for illegal discrimination.

>Maybe contributes to open source projects?

If you want to know this try asking "do you contribute to open source projects?" instead.

>It's undeniable the chemistry between team members is an important factor.

Sounds like an proxy for illegal discrimination. "Oh, our teams chemistry is important so we don't want to hire an older person/woman/Mormon/mother/Indian/recent immigrant/double amputee because they are too different and would mess up the team chemistry." Even if this isn't intentional its the end result.

I'll tell you what's important for team chemistry - respect and professionalism in a work setting, good work performance, and good work ethic. Not their life ambitions, what type of literature they read or what type of hobbies they have. I've only worked in incredibly diverse teams and it's not a problem for "team chemistry." However, I would think working with someone who could only work with people they are friends with WOULD be a problem, a big problem.

But, really, could you actually honestly defend this position in court if you had to? Doubtful. I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing.

But, really, what's an example of a "wrong" answer to this question? Are you really going to say "Oh, she's boring outside of work, lets not hire her?" How silly.

I know a guy (not a coworker of mine) who literally does absolutely nothing outside of work except sleep, play video games, exercise, cook and clean, and very occasionally grabs a beer with me. He rarely leaves the house except to go to work. He's got the most boring life ever but he's gotten several promotions over the course of the first couple years of his career.

[pier25]

> respect and professionalism in a work setting, good work performance, and good work ethic

And how do you evaluate that in an interview?

> I'm a childless woman at the age where most conversations about vague future life plans are actually inquiries about childbearing.

I already said this is not about life-plans.

> But, really, what's an example of a "wrong" answer to this question? Are you really going to say "Oh, she's boring outside of work, lets not hire her?" How silly.

You are making many assumptions here which clearly indicate you are missing the point. It's not about knowing if the candidate prefers reading Dostoevsky or Dan Brown, it's about knowing a bit more about his/her character and personality.