[darth_avocado]

Great ideas, they don’t work.

1. Mornings only is impossible because a lot of interviewer availability is in the afternoon since for a lot of them, it’s an unproductive task

2. Batching sounds good, but doesn’t work because different companies move at different paces and you almost always can’t batch them. You’d be lucky if you could batch 2 onsites back to back.

3. You may not be able to batch subsequent rounds together because you sometimes may not hear back on time

4. Most important of all, none of this takes into account that you already may be working a demanding job that you cant take time off from that easily

[TedDoesntTalk]

It's much more important to learn how to sell yourself with honesty and integrity than to follow these tips. Nobody else can do it for you.

[ysavir]

What about these tips lack honesty or integrity?

[lief79]

Nothing, he's just suggesting that as a different, higher priority.

[hooloovoo_zoo]

I wouldn't take 1 too seriously anyway. There's some evidence for instance that judges are harsher before lunch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect.

[db65edfc7996]

This is considered dubious [0].

[0] https://nautil.us/blog/impossibly-hungry-judges

[throwaway8329]

It's very unfortunate to see the parent has been down-voted for linking the Wikipedia page for an article which has over 1,000 citations - mind you citations are a key metric for the credibility of science, for good and for worse.

The science is not debunked by a blog post on nautil.us.

If the author is very sure of their argument then it would be of greater scientific merit for them to review the original data and other data, and report the fact of the data not matching what was reported in the original study, as well as proposing their own hypothesis for future work.

But the author's blog post claims an ad-absurdum proof, while ignoring that their proof doesn't extend to the difference in height between 21 year old males and females, despite that being cited as being an equivalent effect size. It's this kind of thing that means cited scientific work appears in the Wikipedia article, and Nautilus blog posts do not.

Edit: dis-disclosure I have nothing to do with the person who wrote the parent comment, just an observer