Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.

Microsoft Drops Brain Teasers From Employee Interview Process

posted by mrpg on Monday December 31 2018, @09:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the arcane dept.

takyon writes:

Microsoft drops brain teasers from employee interview process

The interview process for Silicon Valley developer jobs has always had a reputation of being an arcane trial by fire exercise designed to weed down thousands of applicants to just the selected few antisocial geniuses.

Microsoft has however been making an effort to improve their hiring process to make it more useful and inclusive, and in a blog post John Montgomery, partner director of program management at Microsoft, explained the changes Microsoft has made to the process, which has meant cutting out such as questions as how many golf balls will fit into a 747.

Rethinking how we interview in Microsoft's Developer Division.

Also at Business Insider.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Drops Brain Teasers From Employee Interview Process | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 49 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @04:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @04:27PM (#780297)

    Thanks, I can't believe that I forgot about that case.

    The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (“WPT”), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and cautioned that because overqualified candidates may soon become bored with unchallenging work and quit
    [...] We require no supporting empirical evidence and will not strike down a classification as unconstitutional unless “‘the . . . facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.
    [...] The Court held that classifications need not be perfect, because "‘the problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations - illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’"
    [...] Plaintiff presented some evidence that high scorers do not actually experience more job dissatisfaction, but that evidence does not create a factual issue, because it matters not whether the city’s decision was correct so long as it was rational.

    http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html [aele.org]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut#Jordan_v._New_London [wikipedia.org]