[mattgibson]

TBF I don't think this is bad. The "cheating" involved seems a closer match to the actual real world conditions of the doing the job than the artificial "no internet allowed" assessment. If the candidates can get stuff done but need the internet as a reference, that's still getting stuff done. Not surprising that they are now getting promoted given they can not only get stuff done, but were resourceful enough to find a method to "cheat" and also pull it off successfully whilst being monitored.

[nevermindiguess]

The goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities. Henceforth, cheating cannot be justified.

[fauxpause_]

If the assessment has no relationship to the job requirements then the test assessment cannot be justified either

[JohnFen]

That might be true, but is a different issue. It's certainly doesn't justify dishonesty.

[aidenn0]

That's a silly argument. There are many jobs at which being smart is an advantage. IQ tests correlate fairly well with being smart. Giving an IQ test could then give you a group of people that are more likely to be smart than the initial interviewing population. Assuming the job is not "taking IQ tests" is the assessment unjustified?

[fauxpause_]

Seems irrelevant if the people getting the job by cheating are considered high performers getting promotions

[aidenn0]

I think you took too much from implication. TFA states that they are getting promotions. Everything else is assumptions:

1. They are considered high performers (maybe promotions are on a schedule?)

2. They are actually high performers (some people can bullshit their way through a job for years).

3. They are outperforming a hypothetical person who didn't cheat on the test and would have been hired instead of them with an honest assessment.

[fauxpause_]

If an org can’t tell who is good and worthy of promotion when they’re working for them every day, they have no chance of doing so in an interview

[John23832]

As much as I hate the current interview process, this isn't true.

The justification foe the assessment is that the assessment is the defined set of hoops that the company who you are trying to get paid by has assigned.

[iainmerrick]

Isn't that a bit circular? "This is the assignment because the assignment is this"?

[HDThoreaun]

> The goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities.

Maybe to the interviewer. But for the applicant the goal is to achieve an outcome.

[11101010001100]

Why not just literally take the job?

[surgical_fire]

As an interviewer, I don't care if the candidates cheat.

I can assess his abilities either way.

[tourmalinetaco]

When presented with a problem she not only found a solution, but shared that solution with her peers. And has been promoted at her jobsite. As far as I can see, the interview properly assessed her abilities and found her qualified for the job.

In short, the interview process worked as intended.

[pydry]

Technically, it would be better if everybody had internet access.

BUT, it means that Amazon creating a selection pressure for people who cheat. Long term this will be corrosive to the organizational fiber of the corporation as idiotic unrealistic leetcode questions are to the technical fiber.

Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions.

[FooBarBizBazz]

> Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions.

People are just riding these organizations down as they crash, starting at the very top with the CEOs. The same feeling extends to the countries and societies where these things operate. Vultures upon a corpse.

[wahnfrieden]

I wouldn’t blame the devs for their quality issues. Try ownership.

[brookst]

Finger pointing isn’t a great signal.

[wahnfrieden]

Quality isn’t a skill issue. It’s prioritization. Ownership decides how devs spend their time.

[JohnFen]

I get your point, but skill also plays into quality.

[solarmist]

Skill plays into ownership too. It plays into everything. What is your point?

[thih9]

Get stuff done but not exactly meet all of the requirements.

So maybe features will get implemented but rules and laws not necessarily respected.

And perhaps that’s useful for some companies.

[wahnfrieden]

“No internet during dev” is not a business requirement, it’s hazing

When I used to run interviews (no longer working) I’d learn the most from seeing how candidates resourcefully used google, skimmed results, found relevant info. That was immediately revealing.

[thih9]

I think it’s a popular approach to see the hiring process as hazing, at least in some companies. I.e. to throw random hurdles, later check who’s doing best and hire them.

I saw companies state that openly. E.g. saying: we’re all competent programmers, none of us like leetcode and we don’t use that in our actual job, but we need a way to filter candidates and this seems the best practical solution.

Again, perhaps desperate people and/or hustlers make for a good workforce, especially in some companies.

[hgsgm]

"Interview should be a real world test of my abilities."

"OK, take two weeks and create a feature."

"No, not like that."

[wahnfrieden]

Who said that (not me)

[ambicapter]

Might not be you, but I've seen tons of people on this board bemoan take-home interview tests.

[falcolas]

Usually people are only annoyed if they're not paid for their (excessive for an interview) time.

Two weeks worth of contractor rates for a finished feature as an interview? Sign me up!

[JohnFen]

A person who cheats is a person who cannot be trusted. Trustworthiness is one of the things employers are looking for.

[falcolas]

> Trustworthiness is one of the things employers are looking for.

And yet rarely reciprocated beyond what's explicitly required by law.

</ Tangent >

[doctorh]

If you're willing to go to such lengths in order to be deceptive, it reflects very badly on your moral character. I wouldn't want to work with people like that and we should not reward that kind of behavior.

[PartiallyTyped]

I am not particularly fond of this kind of moral flexibility. It's lying and the person found ways to justify themselves. This isn't the kind of person I can trust to be honest with me, they don't seem reliable either. Thanks, but no thanks.