Great Interview Question... Who is your favorite person in history?
-
I'm also curious how there could possibly be a wrong answer. There was this great co-ed that sat next to me in one of my history classes. Smart, great body, killer smile. By far, she was my favorite person in history (class).
When I've conducted interviews, I've asked people that, if they were a flower, what kind of flower would they be. I'd say my question is almost as stupid as yours. Let's start a club.
-
@webzter said:
Yamamoto Tsunetomo - You don't just kill your enemy, you stomp their faces in and then urinate on them. That's the way of the Samauri and that's the way of capitalism.
Blah. You'll find that in the long run, an excessively hostile "stomp-in-your-face" attitude is detrimental to a business. You develop a reputation. People dislike you. Take it far enough, and popular sentiment may even take you down forcefully. Remember, would-be capitalists, when you're out to make yourself a profit - if you start bringing in hate and vendettas into the equation, that's a good way to bring about your downfall, and you lose valuable goodwill.There's nothing uniquely capitalist about this, either. What do you think that whole deal with sowing the fields with salt was, back around Carthage, when the Romans took it, hmm? Stop blaming capitalism for the woes of the world and maybe you'll be able to fix things - something Karl Marx, for one, never actually was able to accomplish.
-
@fennec said:
@webzter said:
Yamamoto Tsunetomo - You don't just kill your enemy, you stomp their faces in and then urinate on them. That's the way of the Samauri and that's the way of capitalism.
Blah. You'll find that in the long run, an excessively hostile "stomp-in-your-face" attitude is detrimental to a business. You develop a reputation. People dislike you. Take it far enough, and popular sentiment may even take you down forcefully. Remember, would-be capitalists, when you're out to make yourself a profit - if you start bringing in hate and vendettas into the equation, that's a good way to bring about your downfall, and you lose valuable goodwill.There's nothing uniquely capitalist about this, either. What do you think that whole deal with sowing the fields with salt was, back around Carthage, when the Romans took it, hmm? Stop blaming capitalism for the woes of the world and maybe you'll be able to fix things - something Karl Marx, for one, never actually was able to accomplish.
So you're picking on my Way of the Samauri but not my shout out to the late, great JC? Sorry, I need to start color-coding the sarcasm text orange.
You know, when Seagate bought Maxtor, all of the layoffs happened at Maxtor... the CEO felt that, if his people were good enough to 'win' against the competition, they shouldn't be punished.
-
I don't mean to flame here, but I think you're all wrong (other than the OP). The "right" answer to this question has nothing to do with the person you name. Rather, the right/wrong part is the justification of the person. As has been said, an interviewee could answer Hitler and justify it well enough to merit a job. Also,
someone could answer "George Washington" and then totally punt on the justification... "Well, he like, founded our nation and stuff..."
This is one of those questions that attempt to determine the intelligence of the person. If the interviewee is intelligent, they can answer this question "correctly" every time. You all have met the programmer who writes code well and can answer all the tech questions well, but turns out to have no real intelligence outside the tech arena. Granted, for some jobs, you don't need that, but
if you're trying to hire top notch programmers, you want people who are intelligent.
In my last interview, I asked about his college experience, then just kept asking questions in the thread of the conversation. The point of these questions was to determine if he was intelligent. He was, and we hired him.
-
@webzter said:
Nope, hey, I like JC. :DSo you're picking on my Way of the Samauri but not my shout out to the late, great JC? Sorry, I need to start color-coding the sarcasm text orange.
You know, when Seagate bought Maxtor, all of the layoffs happened at Maxtor... the CEO felt that, if his people were good enough to 'win' against the competition, they shouldn't be punished.
And hey. You know, when the Romans conquered Gaul, they took prisoners back to work as slaves (or die as gladiators). Or, hey, you could work in the Soviet system, and maybe end up in Siberia if they didn't like you enough (they don't have as many buyouts, there, I suppose, but)...
Ah well.
-
Hyman Rickover, Mr. Nuclear Submarine, would ask "What's the last book you read and what did you learn from it?"
You see in the old days, really smart people would read "books" that had "information" in them.
That question would quickly filter out anybody with less than exceptional intellectual curiosity.
-
@Edgesmash said:
I don't mean to flame here, but I think you're all wrong (other than the OP). The "right" answer to this question has nothing to do with the person you name. Rather, the right/wrong part is the justification of the person. As has been said, an interviewee could answer Hitler and justify it well enough to merit a job. Also,
someone could answer "George Washington" and then totally punt on the justification... "Well, he like, founded our nation and stuff..."Well, to be honest, I don't think that's what the OP meant at all. Because, if that was the case, then there would be one wrong answer. The candidate didn't elaborate on the answer and didn't provide a thoughtful justification for their stance. Rather, the OP said "there are many WRONG answers. "
-
@webzter said:
@Edgesmash said:
I don't mean to flame here, but I think you're all wrong (other than the OP). The "right" answer to this question has nothing to do with the person you name. Rather, the right/wrong part is the justification of the person. As has been said, an interviewee could answer Hitler and justify it well enough to merit a job. Also,
someone could answer "George Washington" and then totally punt on the justification... "Well, he like, founded our nation and stuff..."Well, to be honest, I don't think that's what the OP meant at all. Because, if that was the case, then there would be one wrong answer. The candidate didn't elaborate on the answer and didn't provide a thoughtful justification for their stance. Rather, the OP said "there are many WRONG answers. "
Good point, webzter. I guess I imprinted my own stance over the OP's. Still, I think it's a fair question if judged correctly. Also, "many wrong answers" could mean that you can answer any person in history and still have it be the "wrong" answer (i.e. no logical justification).
But thanks for pointing that out.
-
@Edgesmash said:
I don't mean to flame here, but I think you're all wrong (other than the OP). The "right" answer to this question has nothing to do with the person you name. Rather, the right/wrong part is the justification of the person. As has been said, an interviewee could answer Hitler and justify it well enough to merit a job. Also,
someone could answer "George Washington" and then totally punt on the justification... "Well, he like, founded our nation and stuff..."
This is one of those questions that attempt to determine the intelligence of the person. If the interviewee is intelligent, they can answer this question "correctly" every time. You all have met the programmer who writes code well and can answer all the tech questions well, but turns out to have no real intelligence outside the tech arena. Granted, for some jobs, you don't need that, but
if you're trying to hire top notch programmers, you want people who are intelligent.
In my last interview, I asked about his college experience, then just kept asking questions in the thread of the conversation. The point of these questions was to determine if he was intelligent. He was, and we hired him.This is getting close to cultural discrimination. Knowing about history isn't a measure of intelligence, which is one of the reasons its not in IQ tests or on the ACT or SAT college entrance exams. I know plenty of people who are very intelligent but have absolutely no interest in learning about history. Just because you haven't learned about something doesn't mean you can't learn about something.
I think your strategy is better, to actually ask questions about something the candidate is interested in. One popular question is "What was your favorite non-technical elective class you took in college?". This would give you a better idea of the candidate's interest outside of her field.
Also, non-technical knowledge is not necessarily a sign of a good programmer. I know of some very selective companies that only hire people who eat, sleep, and breathe code. These people code all day and then go home and work on an open source project. This doesn't leave much time for reading a book about the Battle of the Bulge or watching the History Channel.
-
the wtf is that this question is asked at all. OP should be officially barred from managerial positions for being that level of stupid
-
@Edgesmash said:
I don't mean to flame here, but I think you're all wrong (other than the OP). The "right" answer to this question has nothing to do with the person you name. Rather, the right/wrong part is the justification of the person. As has been said, an interviewee could answer Hitler and justify it well enough to merit a job. Also,
someone could answer "George Washington" and then totally punt on the justification... "Well, he like, founded our nation and stuff..."
This is one of those questions that attempt to determine the intelligence of the person. If the interviewee is intelligent, they can answer this question "correctly" every time. You all have met the programmer who writes code well and can answer all the tech questions well, but turns out to have no real intelligence outside the tech arena. Granted, for some jobs, you don't need that, but
if you're trying to hire top notch programmers, you want people who are intelligent.So what ? This is still inappropriate. Plus, I wouldn't trust anybody to be unbiased towards the answered name, or opinion-related constructive explanation, no matter what that person claims. Not only that, but a person claiming to be reasonably unbiased would not only be wrong, but lying.
Anyway, WTF with expecting a detailed explanation as answer to such a question. You don't like people or things, being historical or whatever, for reasons. Granted, that may happen, but it is in no way necessary. Trying to explain why you like something well-known, or the lifetime actions someone well-known has done, is far from an obvious behaviour. You'd feel you have nothing to say about it, mostly because, matter-of-factly, there is nothing to say about it except to children, as history class.
(Plus, I've been tricked by the word "history", but would it be unexpected from a native speaker to pick his or her significant other or a close person ? How are you supposed to develop, then ?)
-
First of all, I have to agree with most people here that this is a poor question for an interview. However I'm not naive enough to believe that interviews aren't based upon a personal impression, and a question like that does get to the bone of it.
It would be nice however if you tried a little more to seem like you're judging the candidates on their merit though.
HAVING said that, the first answer that I'd be tempted to say would be Jesus Christ, because if you didn't give me the job I'll have some lawyers call you up. Job security in advance. I wouldn't, but the thought would cross my mind.
my answer, presuming it would be a programming job (hey I've already shown I'm devious) would be Charles Babbage, designer of the Difference Engine, and Ada Byron.
Or possibly Carl Sagan. Billions and Billions...
-
@morry said:
However I'm not naive enough to believe that interviews aren't based upon a personal impression
It's true that they can be, but they aren't supposed to be.
Of course, there are different types of interviews for different types of jobs at different types of companies. If you're interviewing at a mom-and-pop shop where you'll work very closely with the people who interviewed you, maybe it's more important that those specific people like you. If you're going to work at a huge company of 10,000+ people where you'll work with lots of different people, then what one person thinks of you really shouldn't factor that heavily.
-cw
-
Re: Who is your favorite person in history?
OK, I got one:
If you could pick any person in history, have him brought to life and chained to a wall so you could punch him in the face over and over again, who would you pick and why?
-
@newfweiler said:
OK, I got one:
If you could pick any person in history, have him brought to life and chained to a wall so you could punch him in the face over and over again, who would you pick and why?
If I didn't want the job:
"Well sir, that's an excellent question. Frankly, I would choose your dad, may he rest in peace, for being dumb enough to knock your mom up"
-
So does this mean we'll never hear back from Hogart as to what a good/bad answer might be? That's disappointing.
-cw
-
he seems to be afraid to respond to his thread as he sees that almost everyone seems to be in consensus that he is that manager that should never be a manager.
-
Favorite person in history? That's EASY.
Me.
I like being me. I can honestly say that if I weren't me, I wouldn't be the same person. In fact, if it weren't for me, you probably wouldn't be interviewing me in the first place. And I can honestly say that if you hire me, it will be absolutely 100% because of me and my contributions to the world. Why, without me, you wouldn't even be here.
If the interviewer doesn't appreciate the sheer genius of this response, I don't want to work there anyway.
-
@CDarklock said:
Favorite person in history? That's EASY.
Me.
I like being me. I can honestly say that if I weren't me, I wouldn't be the same person. In fact, if it weren't for me, you probably wouldn't be interviewing me in the first place. And I can honestly say that if you hire me, it will be absolutely 100% because of me and my contributions to the world. Why, without me, you wouldn't even be here.
If the interviewer doesn't appreciate the sheer genius of this response, I don't want to work there anyway.
Most likely, you're not in history yet. This is a technicality, but unless you can point to something that mentions you by name, such as a book, newspaper story, song ballad, arrest record or gravestone, you're not a "person in history."
-
@newfweiler said:
Most likely, you're not in history yet. This is a technicality, but unless you can point to something that mentions you by name, such as a book, newspaper story, song ballad, arrest record or gravestone, you're not a "person in history."
In the internet age, it's pretty difficult to say for sure that nothing at all points to a particular person.
-
@ammoQ said:
@newfweiler said:
Most likely, you're not in history yet. This is a technicality, but unless you can point to something that mentions you by name, such as a book, newspaper story, song ballad, arrest record or gravestone, you're not a "person in history."
In the internet age, it's pretty difficult to say for sure that nothing at all points to a particular person.
Whatever non-paper media you appear on will not be readable by anyone in 50 years (can you read a Univac I tape?). So unless those Internet postings continue to get copied to new media, you'll be forgotten by the time your grandchildren die.
It's nice to think that Google will still be archiving everything in 50 years, but we can't count on it.
(We can probably count on the FBI and the NSA doing it though.)
-
I like this question. When i was applying for a job that i mentioned having before, there were a lot of questions asked that really had nothing to do with the job, but i had a blast, because everyone was so nice. When they asked why someone of my education and technical background wanted to work in what was essentially customer service, i answered "It's easy to transfer jobs within than apply from without"
I really wanted to work in the sound engineering department, and told them so. So they toured me through the development center.
I think that all interview questions are explicitly important, and the fact that the interviewer is biased is fine by me. If they don't hire me because of managerial bias, then why would i want to be managed by them anyhow? Of the handful of jobs i've held, i gotta say that i really enjoyed the interviews.
Here's a cute anecdote.
Fry's electronics is a large electronics and retail store in the southwestern united states. They're a company, not a corporation, and each store has a manager that is responsible for the entire store and what they pay the employees and all of that. Well i applied for a job there because i needed to pay for school and stuff. Generally when i am in a large electronics/computer store, i walk around and help people when there are no sales associates around, because i like to look at stuff in quiet solitude and they tend to go away after they find what they want. So as i was in the store for the interview, i was being introduced to people and then left at a station while they tended to something else, and i would help people that needed help (as i usually did). An employee even brought a customer to me because it was apparent that i knew more than him about whatever it was, ram speeds or wireless networking or something. I got the job without even a formal interview, because i made sure to tell the customers to tell the floor manager that they had been helped by me.
I ended up quitting because they wanted me to cut my hair, and i said X dollars an hour isn't worth a year of hair, sorry.
-
@newfweiler said:
@ammoQ said:
@newfweiler said:
Most likely, you're not in history yet. This is a technicality, but unless you can point to something that mentions you by name, such as a book, newspaper story, song ballad, arrest record or gravestone, you're not a "person in history."
In the internet age, it's pretty difficult to say for sure that nothing at all points to a particular person.
Whatever non-paper media you appear on will not be readable by anyone in 50 years (can you read a Univac I tape?). So unless those Internet postings continue to get copied to new media, you'll be forgotten by the time your grandchildren die.
It's nice to think that Google will still be archiving everything in 50 years, but we can't count on it.
(We can probably count on the FBI and the NSA doing it though.)
I recall reading somewhere that some people are working on an archival medium that will be easily readable in the future, as opposed to NTFS blocks and FAT blocks and the ilk. I don't remember what the project was called, but it was specifically for archiving digital content in such a fashion that you could decode it by whatever means you had around. Personally i think that increasing HD capacities are going to be the downfall of ... something. i lost my train of thought. oh yah, can you imagine trying to rip data off HD platters 250 years from now? what a nightmare.
-
@newfweiler said:
Whatever non-paper media you appear on will not be readable by anyone in 50 years (can you read a Univac I tape?). So unless those Internet postings continue to get copied to new media, you'll be forgotten by the time your grandchildren die.
Fortunately, at least two magazines have printed my letters to the editor, so I'm already a historical person? ;-)
-
Darwin, Newton, Faulkner.
I'm going to go against the grain here. I actually think it's a good question, especially for smaller companies. It gives you an idea of the candidates philosophies and veiws which are very important, especially if that candidate is going to be making decisions. Sure, maybe it's politically incorrect, and maybe it could lead to discrimination suits, but in a perfect world I'd ask everyone I could this question, but more importantly, I'd follow it up with "why?"
-
@microsage said:
Darwin, Newton, Faulkner.
I'm going to go against the grain here. I actually think it's a good question, especially for smaller companies. It gives you an idea of the candidates philosophies and veiws which are very important, especially if that candidate is going to be making decisions. Sure, maybe it's politically incorrect, and maybe it could lead to discrimination suits, but in a perfect world I'd ask everyone I could this question, but more importantly, I'd follow it up with "why?"
A Candidates philosophies are non of your business. His views aren't either. Your business is how well he can do the job he is interviewing for. If you have built a work environment where you can only get your work done if you prescribe to a particular viewpoint or philosophy you are living in something FAR from a perfect world. It's not that the question is politically incorrect. It's that the question has nothing to do with the what he is interviewing for. It is more of an insult to the interviewee than anything. Basically what you would be saying is, "We think you might not be able to determine for yourself a proper figure in history to be interested in. Please tell us who you are most intrigued by and we will judge you based on who you say." Then you ask "Why?" and basically what you are saying is that they might not have a valid reason to like this person. If I said Einstein was my favorite person in history and you asked Why? and I said "because he has crazy hair" what would you think? Never mind the fact that the crazy hair might actually be a symptom of something much more interesting and I might be talking about that and just not say it because I am annoyed by the question.
-
Ugh. What a narrowmindedness in this topic. I think it is a great question, if only to prevent hiring those people annoyed by it. My god, if you were only able to talk about the newest buzzwords or the newest holywood blockbusters, i wouldn't want to have you as a colleague. The feeling is probably mutual, which proves it is such a good question: You immediately know you don't want to work there, they immediately know they don't want to employ you. As interview questions go, can they come any better?
-
bouk: Yep! They can be interesting and fun instead of loaded and rediculous.
Why not ask them this something more in tune with what you do? Better to just focus on the things that are critical (like, does this guy know how to program?) than foolishly think you can judge someone's attitude based on a tense situation involving a canned set of circumstances that involve two people who are, in essence, lieing to each other. What is this truely going to tell you? What are you looking for? Why are you asking this question? Aside from that, the question is self-righteous and self-centered anyway in this environment. Coming from someone who is supposed to be grilling you, it makes them appear authoritative on the subject. Being as all things you do impact the decision made by the employer, this decision instantly makes the interview no longer objective.
Questions like "What is your biggest weakness" or "What do you like least?" or "What do you most dislike about a job" basically require you to lie. I, unfortunately, am too honest - when someone asks me my biggest weakness, I answer honestly and they get that stupid look on their face. I know the interview is blown because, well, they're hypocrites. As if, somehow, everyone likes to work 50 hours, 10 of which are unpaid and unrewarded (which I do). And I'm sure that our only weakness is that we tend to over focus on issues, or our customer service skills need a bit of work, or that we have a tendancy to get caught up with work things and lose track of time, or that our biggest weakness is that we require organization tools like Outlook and PDAs to remember things.
One thing I learned doing interviews: the last thing most people are looking for is honesty.
-
@newfweiler said:
Most likely, you're not in history yet.
Dude, I'm a top 100 poster on TDWTF. I rock.
-
@ShadowWolf said:
One thing I learned doing interviews: the last thing most people are looking for is honesty.
Um... I'm always looking for honesty.
Face it, if you have a good mind, you can learn whatever I need you to learn. I care whether you understand when a hash table is useful. I don't really care whether you can write a reliable hash function from memory. If you think a binary tree is a good way to solve a particular problem, I'm not really worried about whether it's the BEST way, as long as it's not obviously bad. If you don't know what a binary tree is, that's fine too, for most positions.
When I interview someone, my first and foremost concern is whether you are going to fit into the team where I want you to work. And that's largely about politics and social ideals. If you like arriving early in the morning and leaving after lunch, but the team shows up in the early afternoon and works till midnight, you're a bad fit. If you're a Republican and the rest of the team are Barack Obama groupies, you're a bad fit. And if you're a liar who says whatever you think people want to hear, I don't want you talking to my clients, which is often what my teams are expected to do.
I haven't been nervous in an interview for years. I've got an interview today at 3 PM, and I'm not the least bit worried. I'll walk in knowing that I'm qualified for the position and will do an excellent job. If that's not good enough for them, there are plenty of other places to work.
-
@microsage said:
I'm going to go against the grain here. I actually think it's a good question, especially for smaller companies. It gives you an idea of the candidates philosophies and veiws which are very important, especially if that candidate is going to be making decisions. Sure, maybe it's politically incorrect, and maybe it could lead to discrimination suits, but in a perfect world I'd ask everyone I could this question, but more importantly, I'd follow it up with "why?"
It's an excelent question when solely asked by people I can't stand, because as a candidate, I wouldn't like it and it would save me from working with people I can't stand.
-
@CDarklock said:
If you're a Republican and the rest of the team are Barack Obama groupies, you're a bad fit.
That'll get you a lawsuit. That would be discrimination on the basis of political belief, which is the whole reason this sort of question isn't a good one.
But, you said two sort of contradictory things there...
@CDarklock said:
I haven't been nervous in an interview for years. I've got an interview today at 3 PM, and I'm not the least bit worried. I'll walk in knowing that I'm qualified for the position and will do an excellent job. If that's not good enough for them, there are plenty of other places to work.
@CDarklock said:
When I interview someone, my first and foremost concern is whether you are going to fit into the team where I want you to work. And that's largely about politics and social ideals.
So...you don't care about that stuff when you go to an interview, because you're qualified and will do an excellent job, but when you interview someone else they are supposed to care about it?
-cw
-
@CodeWhisperer said:
That'll get you a lawsuit. That would be discrimination on the basis of political belief, which is the whole reason this sort of question isn't a good one.
Lawsuit, lawsuit... there are other countries out there you know, and their laws are not completely the same as yours. It's easier to fire someone than not to hire him in the first place in the US, it seems.
-
@bouk said:
Lawsuit, lawsuit... there are other countries out there you know
Given his Obama/Republican reference, it didn't seem like a huge leap to surmise that he was in the US. And if you read my previous posts, you'd see that I'm not all that thrilled about the litigous nature of this country. But, that's the way it is.
As for being easier to fire than not to hire -- well, it's certainly easier to fire people here than it seems to be in Europe from what I've heard;but that aside, it's very easy not to hire someone...as long as you do it (or don't do it) on the basis of something other than age, gender, marital status, religious or political beliefs, etc.
You can even just say "I don't like them", but if you've asked them questions that lead them to be able to say "They don't like me because I'm republican", then you've opened yourself to a lawsuit. And the fact that I or you might snicker at the possibility doesn't mean the companies we work for will be very pleased when they have to pay the settlement.
-cw
-
@CodeWhisperer said:
That'll get you a lawsuit.
Yeah, because I'll call you right up and say "you know, we'd rather hire a Democrat".
People lose job opportunities because of political beliefs all the time. You just have to say it's because of something else. I can find dozens of reasons not to hire someone. Good luck proving what I was thinking when I decided not to hire you; as long as I don't write it down, you just plain can't.
This is why anti-discrimination laws are stupid. I *could* tell you up front that I won't hire a Republican for this position, but I can't. I have to pretend Republicans have a shot, but in the end I still don't hire them. That wastes their time and mine when they interview for the position. If we could just advertise however we wanted, life would get easier for everybody. Joe Redneck could say "no coons", and Joanne Feminist could say "womyn only". Then we'd know where these people are.
So...you don't care about that stuff when you go to an interview, because you're qualified and will do an excellent job, but when you interview someone else they are supposed to care about it?
I'm not nervous because everything under my control is handled. If I can control it, it's in order. If I can't, it's pointless to worry about it. I can't be a better fit for your team through preparation; I either fit or I don't. End of story.
-
@CDarklock said:
Yeah, because I'll call you right up and say "you know, we'd rather hire a Democrat".
The thing is, you don't have to. All you have to do is ask me who my favorite person is, I say "George Bush", then on the way out the door I notice a number of pro-democratic bumper stickers on cars and, voila, a frivolous lawsuit is born.
I know, it's stupid and indeed frivolous 99% of the time, but those suits do get filed quite regularly. Hell, I'm not even allowed to ask someone what part of town they drove in from for some reason...something about judging people by socio-economic status or something. >shrug<
I don't think that a diverse team has to cause problems...my team has at least 4 different nationalities; men and women; republicans, democrats and the politically unconcerned; self-taught and college educated, ranging in age from 20s thru 40s. Some of them are in before the sun is up, others arrive at 10:30. So far it hasn't caused any huge problems.
In fact, I think there's a danger in too homogenous a team. Diverse skill sets and backgrounds tend to lead to richer and more robust solutions. If you have 5 guys who all think alike, there's a good chance they all have the same blind spots too.
-cw
-
@CDarklock said:
@CodeWhisperer said:
That'll get you a lawsuit.
Yeah, because I'll call you right up and say "you know, we'd rather hire a Democrat".
People lose job opportunities because of political beliefs all the time. You just have to say it's because of something else. I can find dozens of reasons not to hire someone. Good luck proving what I was thinking when I decided not to hire you; as long as I don't write it down, you just plain can't.
This is why anti-discrimination laws are stupid. I *could* tell you up front that I won't hire a Republican for this position, but I can't. I have to pretend Republicans have a shot, but in the end I still don't hire them. That wastes their time and mine when they interview for the position. If we could just advertise however we wanted, life would get easier for everybody. Joe Redneck could say "no coons", and Joanne Feminist could say "womyn only". Then we'd know where these people are.
So...you don't care about that stuff when you go to an interview, because you're qualified and will do an excellent job, but when you interview someone else they are supposed to care about it?
I'm not nervous because everything under my control is handled. If I can control it, it's in order. If I can't, it's pointless to worry about it. I can't be a better fit for your team through preparation; I either fit or I don't. End of story.
Just because there are those that would discriminate despite the laws doesn't justify the removal of the laws. You can't rationalize that there's no reason to allow people to irrationally disqualify people based on the fact that some people do it. Asking questions like this only gives ammunition to the dejected interviewee and provides grounds for a lawsuit to happen. If they're not a fit, why even do this when the same information can easily be gathered more objective ways.
That It's difficult to prove that you lost a job opportunity on the basis of discrimination of some form is a red herring. The laws are spelled out quite clearly and most states have agendas that they follow to investigate these types of situations. Plus, typically, the employer is essentially considered guilty until proven innocent if grounds (arbitrary) exist to demonstrate a law has been broken. (http://deskinlawfirm.com/grounds_by_which_an_employer_discriminates & http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html) You wouldn't provide that information anyway because once it gets out that so-and-so company discriminates based upon whether you're a republican or not, they get a bad rap and lose potential employees/customers. Many companies take this kind of thing very seriously - consult with your local HR department if you don't believe so. A company's reputation is a majority of what makes it successful. If you don't believe this, ask yourself why sites like bestbuysux.com constantly get takedown notices.
As for your comment about looking for honesty - that's fantastic, I said most. Your viewpoint doesn't discredit anything I said.
-
-
@CDarklock said:
When I interview someone, my first and foremost concern is whether you are going to fit into the team where I want you to work. And that's largely about politics and social ideals. If you like arriving early in the morning and leaving after lunch, but the team shows up in the early afternoon and works till midnight, you're a bad fit. If you're a Republican and the rest of the team are Barack Obama groupies, you're a bad fit.
Does anyone have an example of someone who would have been weeded out through one of these questions costing a company money? I can't think of a project that failed because the tech lead was a Republican or didn't have a strong knowledge of history. It's a lot easier to come up with anecdotes about projects that failed because people weren't good enough at doing their jobs.
-
@burnmp3s said:
@CDarklock said:
When I interview someone, my first and foremost concern is whether you are going to fit into the team where I want you to work. And that's largely about politics and social ideals. If you like arriving early in the morning and leaving after lunch, but the team shows up in the early afternoon and works till midnight, you're a bad fit. If you're a Republican and the rest of the team are Barack Obama groupies, you're a bad fit.
Does anyone have an example of someone who would have been weeded out through one of these questions costing a company money? I can't think of a project that failed because the tech lead was a Republican or didn't have a strong knowledge of history. It's a lot easier to come up with anecdotes about projects that failed because people weren't good enough at doing their jobs.
I once was working on a project when one day all our source code was leaked because of a Trojan Horse virus from a hacker that worked for a competitor. Appearantly one of the people on the team had not heard the story of the Trojan war and that that the anti-virus was warning him that he was about to play a video game when you double clicked on Troy.exe and it told him that the file was a Trojan. Either that or he thought that it was a dating service and the anti-virus was trying to protect him by supplying him with a common brand of prophylactic.
-
The wrong answer would be the one where the interviewee dithers and mumbles and is obviously trying to think of something that would appease the Recruitment Gods.
The right answer would be articulate and informed even if they think about it for a few seconds (like I have to shift mental gears before being able to answer what I had for dinner two nights ago) and even if it ultimately boils down to "I don't have one". Personally, I'd also add points for innovative interpretations of the question (like the "girl in my history class" one).
-
@burnmp3s said:
Does anyone have an example of someone who would have been weeded out through one of these questions costing a company money? I can't think of a project that failed because the tech lead was a Republican or didn't have a strong knowledge of history. It's a lot easier to come up with anecdotes about projects that failed because people weren't good enough at doing their jobs.
I used to work in the same office with a global-warming peak-oil vegan gun-control Christian. It cost the company money every time he would come out of left field and say "how can you not worry about global warming" or "why doesn't peak oil concern you" or "why don't you try giving up meat for a while" or "wouldn't it be better if there were less guns" or "haven't you read the REST of the bible". I couldn't just get up and walk out. I had to sit there, and he'd irritate and distract me with irrelevant comments whenever HIS job didn't have any real need for him to think too hard. That decreased my productivity and his, because he kept starting three-hour discussions about weighty subjects.
Now, I don't for one second believe he shouldn't have had a job. I believe he should have been in an office with another hippie fruitcake who would say "yeah, I agree, we're so cool" whenever these subjects came up. The resulting happiness and contentment might INCREASE productivity. And when you have a large enough company that every group is represented, you can handle things like that. But in a smaller company, it's critical that your team dynamics are well-balanced.
-
@CodeWhisperer said:
voila, a frivolous lawsuit is born.
Know how to deal with a frivolous lawsuit? Annoy the opposing counsel. See, if you make him do too much work, he won't want the case anymore. To a lawyer, time is money in a very tangible sense, and if you can take up enough of his time he'll multiply that out over the expected length of the suit and realise he's losing money.
I don't think that a diverse team has to cause problems...
In fact, I think there's a danger in too homogenous a team
My business was built on a fundamental concept where a "team" was three people. Not two, not four, THREE. Full-stop. One lead, two developers. End of story. One person's opinion makes a big difference in a team of three. If it's a disruptive opinion that will cause friction, that's bad. I don't really care one way or the other what your opinions are; I only care whether you'll be able to get along with your team.
-
@CDarklock said:
My business was built on a fundamental concept where a "team" was three people. Not two, not four, THREE. Full-stop. One lead, two developers.
Three is a bad number if you want to avoid friction.
-
@ammoQ said:
Three is a bad number if you want to avoid friction.
Actually, it's the best number to avoid friction.
One person is not a team.
Two people is bad, because decisions can stalemate and consume time indefinitely.
By extension, any even number has the same problem. The team must be an odd number of people.
Five people is too large for a leader to manage the team AND be a part of it. This is where the management-employee gulf appears, creating friction that cannot be readily resolved.
By extension, any number greater than five has the same problem.
So x is odd, and 1 < x < 5. Looks obvious to me.
Of course, my views on the management-employee gulf aren't exactly mainstream, so you're welcome to make your teams whatever size you like.
-
@CDarklock said:
@ammoQ said:
Three is a bad number if you want to avoid friction.
IMO the problem with a team of three that is that it will quickly lead to the situation where one gets overruled by the others and gets the feeling that they have allied against him.
-
I reckon a good in the balance answer would be "YOU are my favorite person in history", it lets them know you can suck ass which is probably what they're after with an interview question like that :¬)
I reckon a better question would of started with "You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down..."
At my last full time position during the intial interview I was asked which of the two bosses I could beat in a fight, how and why. They were both interviewing me, both brothers and they where both recent ex-bouncer managers so we're talking big honkin guys.
-
@Tann San said:
At my last full time position during the intial interview I was asked which of the two bosses I could beat in a fight, how and why.
This is a great interview question!
-
@yohaas said:
Ghandi
I hope you don't have to write it down during the interview.
My choice, BTW: Kurt Gödel
-
I would say, "I've never been good at history. What about math? Can I give you my favorite whole number instead?"
