IMO this is not a helpful way to put it. They measure skill under stress. Stress may have a large effect on skill level for some people but highly unlikely that it's so large that performance is completely random.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2025
119 points (96.9% liked)
Programming
21903 readers
423 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah, they measure memorization under stress. Can you recall that tidbit of information to solve the problem the interviewer has given you? If you never have needed to solve a problem like that then you’re shit out of luck, even though solving that problem for the first time (by whomever) definitely didn’t do it under stress in a job interview.
Our industry has no idea how to hire people. Our interview processes are almost designed to filter out obviously bad candidates while accepting that some good candidates will fail, too. Getting a specifically good candidate is almost luck.
Remember this if you're bummed about a string of rejections.
You don't know how good you've got it. The hiring process in other industries is much worse.
I mean, this is essentially all hiring processes.
The way to get actually good employees is to be the sort of place that actual good employees want to work for. Good pay, good work-life balance, good managers and company culture, work that is enjoyable and meaningful. Then, you hire through social networks. The founders start off as people who meet through informal social networks. They hire their friends. And then they ask their friends for further recommendations. The best way to know if someone is a good hire is if you have actually worked with them before. And at this point, the interview is really just hanging out, shaking hands, and having lunch before you sign some paperwork.
The problem with only hiring people you have met personally is that you miss out on a whole world of people who would be great to work with but had no chance of ever meeting you or your network. I agree that network recruiting is the safest route, but having diversity in your employees is great. If you only hire through your networks you'll see quickly quickly how you only get one kind of person.
I have seem this happen a lot in smaller companies. It's also the story of how I'm typically the sole woman in the department. I by happenstance happen to seed my professional network from college with a lot of men (because I accidentally picked a college that like 80% men). I'm a unicorn because many men's networks include so few women since in IT they tend to be non-traditional and/or generally excluded from younger men's social groups.
I get tapped via my network all the time. But if the company basically only does referral based hiring me and perhaps one other woman is there for the whole engineering department. It's way more balanced at 20%-30% of the department at companies that don't do this. There is some value in shotgun hiring even if it has a higher fail rate than referral hiring. Different kinds of people can bring fresh perspectives and considerations.
So in other words, focus on hiring extroverts who are great at forming social networks.
I mean, kind of. I wouldnt say extroverts, so much as "people with good/decent social skills". Introversion/extroversion is a sliding scale, not a dichotomy, and it refers more to your propensity to gain or lose energy from social interactions - not your ability to socialize.
While many more introverted people find socializing more difficult in general, there is no reason why they can't develop the skill.
is the point of a question like that not to measure how you perform under stress? the guy who posted it in the screenshot doesn't seem to realise that either though...
my current company does live code design challenges instead of straigt codong exercises. seems to work well