Tech Sector Job Interviews Assess Anxiety, Not Software Skills
即时发布
北卡罗来纳州立大学和微软的一项新研究发现，目前用于雇用许多软件工程职位的技术访谈测试求职者是否有绩效焦虑，而不是候选人是否有能力编码。访谈也可用于排除群体或偏爱特定的求职者。
“Technical interviews are feared and hated in the industry, and it turns out that these interview techniques may also be hurting the industry’s ability to find and hire skilled software engineers,” says Chris Parnin, an assistant professor of computer science at NC State and co-author of a paper on the work. “Our study suggests that a lot of well-qualified job candidates are being eliminated because they’re not used to working on a whiteboard in front of an audience.”
软件工程领域的技术访谈通常采用使求职者解决问题的形式，然后要求候选人在白板上写下代码的解决方案 - 向面试官解释过程的每个步骤。
先前的研究发现软件工程社区中的许多开发人员都认为技术访谈过程被深深缺陷。因此，研究人员决定进行一项研究，旨在评估访谈过程对有抱负的软件工程师的影响。
在这项研究中，研究人员对48位计算机科学本科生和研究生进行了技术访谈。一半的研究参与者接受了传统的技术访谈，并进行了访调员。另一半参与者被要求在私人房间的白板上解决他们的问题。私人访谈不需要研究参与者大声解释他们的解决方案，也没有采访者看他们的肩膀。
研究人员通过评估每个解决方案的准确性和效率来衡量每个研究参与者的访谈表现。换句话说，他们想知道他们编写的代码是否有效，以及运行它所需的计算资源数量。
帕尔宁说：“接受传统采访的人的表现和能够私下面试的人的表现。”“简而言之，调查结果表明，公司错过了真正的好程序员，因为这些程序员不擅长在白板上写作，并在编码时大声解释他们的工作。”
研究人员还指出，当前技术访谈的格式也可用于排除某些候选人。
“For example, interviewers may give easier problems to candidates they prefer,” Parnin says. “But the format may also serve as a barrier to entire classes of candidates. For example, in our study, all of the women who took the public interview failed, while all of the women who took the private interview passed. Our study was limited, and a larger sample size would be needed to draw firm conclusions, but the idea that the very design of the interview process may effectively exclude an entire class of job candidates is troubling.”
更重要的是，技术访谈过程的具体性质意味着许多候选人试图花费数周或数月的时间进行技术访谈，而不是为他们所做的实际工作。
“The technical interview process gives people with industry connections an advantage,” says Mahnaz Behroozi, first author of study and a Ph.D. student at NC State. “But it gives a particularly large advantage to people who can afford to take the time to focus solely on preparing for an interview process that has very little to do with the nature of the work itself.
“这项研究重点的问题是与技术领域的招聘过程相关的其他问题的补充我们在ICSE-SES介绍[国际软件工程会议，社会软件工程]。“如果技术领域可以以有意义的方式解决所有这些挑战，那么将在变得更加公平和包容的情况下取得重大进展。更重要的是，该行业将从更大，更多样化的人才库中汲取灵感，这将有助于更好的工作。”
关于技术访谈的研究，“压力会影响技术面试表现吗？”将在ACM联合欧洲软件工程会议和有关软件工程基础的研讨会上发表，该会议实际上是从11月8日至13日举行的。该研究由Shivani Shirolkar合着，博士学位。北卡罗来纳州立大学的学生在本科生时从事该项目；由Microsoft和前博士学位的研究员Titus Barik撰写。北卡罗来纳州的学生。
- 船员 -
给编辑的注释：研究摘要如下。
“压力会影响技术面试表现吗？”
作者: Mahnaz, Behroozi, Shivani Shirolkar and Chris Parnin, North Carolina State University; and Titus Barik, Microsoft
提出了：11月8日至13日，ACM联合欧洲软件工程会议和软件工程基础研讨会
抽象的：Software engineering candidates commonly participate in whiteboard technical interviews as part of a hiring assessment. During these sessions, candidates write code while thinking-aloud as they work towards a solution, under the watchful eye of an interviewer. While technical interviews should allow for an unbiased and inclusive assessment of problem-solving ability, surprisingly, another possibility is that technical interviews are instead a procedure for identifying candidates who best handle and migrate stress solely caused by being examined by an interviewer (performance anxiety). To understand if coding interviews—as administered today—can induce stress that significantly hinders performance, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with 48 Computer Science students, comparing them in private and public whiteboard settings. We found that performance is reduced by more than half, by simply being watched by an interviewer. We also observed that stress and cognitive load were significantly higher in a traditional technical interview when compared with our private interview. Consequently, interviewers may be filtering out qualified candidates by confounding assessment of problem-solving ability with unnecessary stress. We propose interview modifications to make problem-solving assessment more equitable and inclusive, such as through private focus sessions and retrospective think-aloud, allowing companies to hire from a larger and diverse pool of talent.
这绝对是正确的，我的职业生涯中有50多次采访。他们中的大多数人包括面试我的人，发现我的弱点在哪里，然后开始（厌恶）他们为什么需要一个在这些领域中更强大的人。如何仅仅因为您不熟悉特定网络或不完全熟悉某些术语，如何使整个职业生涯无效？
研究论文的进一步审查后,明白了ms that the “public setting” interview is flawed. It does not seem to accurately model interviews at the top tech companies. Even though they used a question that has also been used at top tech companies, the way in which they responded to candidates was deliberately “brief”. They provided no further details about how they conducted these interviews. They provided no evidence that this is in fact how the top tech companies conduct interviews. There is nothing in this paper to indicate that they surveyed top tech companies to determine how those companies actually conduct the interviews. They have done some previous research on opinions from GlassDoor.com, but how accurate are those opinions? Are people as likely to complement as they are to complain? I have interviewed at Google. The interviewers were not only responsive to my questions, but they also encouraged me to find better solutions and exception conditions. There were no “brief” responses. Also, the interviewers are the same people who designed the research. They could have let their own biases about these kinds of interviews interfere with how they responded to the candidates. The interviewer should have been a neutral party.
看起来这项研究是高度偏见的，是专门用于炒作的。
我在桌子的两边都结束了数百次采访。作为面试官和候选人。我不能说压力是主要障碍。而且，这些任务更容易单独解决，而没有提示或澄清面试官的提示。有一些特定的任务，例如leetcode或hackerrank的任务，可以通过这种方式解决。但是，至少有一半的访谈是关于人们如何处理任务，推理方式，而不是如何解决纯粹的算法任务。
another strange point about women. ALL of them failed on interview and ALL passed when solving tasks solo. really? ALL?
这就提出了一个问题，有什么样的任务以及如何衡量“成功”。
对我来说，这似乎太多了。但是，我想查看解决方案和解决方案的任务。得出自己的结论
===
正如乔所提到的那样，编程工作并不是要与人合作。目前，我有50％的时间正在与他人进行交流和结盟，而不是编写代码。没有人会给您定义明确的算法问题
的确
本文的主张有很多缺陷，我什至不知道从哪里开始。
问题不是面试官是否正在观察受访者，而是在框架和执行“技术访谈”的其他十几个关键上下文因素中。这就是引号，因为事实证明，现实的，模拟的工作样本测试被证明是最准确的在职绩效的预测指标。不仅在技术方面，而且在任何位置。
提到的两种方法是悲伤，懒惰且完全没有用的方法，但至少它们服务于预定的叙述。
帕尔宁先生的猜想也是骚乱。所有的研究都“表明”是，这48个CS学生应该为他们支付5-6个数字的机构做好准备解决问题的准备，以使他们无法为软件工程领域的成功事业做好准备。
我不会召集社区中的特定人员，如果他们愿意的话，他们可以大声疾呼。在一个非常受欢迎的工程论坛上，这种情绪与许多甚至不是大多数高级Faang Company和数百名其他人的观点平行。荒谬的是，我们不允许想要解决问题的人通过创建这些人造障碍来解决问题。
作为企业家，我对本文所述的结果感到非常兴奋。我真的很想更好地面试和雇用最好的候选人，无论他们的人口如何。不幸的是，一旦阅读了实际的研究论文，我就会感到失望。
本文的第一段以：“访谈也可用于排除群体或偏爱特定的求职者。”这是纯粹的猜测，研究中没有证据支持这一说法。没有收集有关种族和种族的信息。
“我们的研究表明，由于不习惯在观众面前在白板上工作，因此许多合格的候选人被淘汰了。”这取决于您对合格的定义。软件是由团队而不是个人构建的。事实证明，白板协作对软件团队非常有益。软件还建立在具有截止日期的高压力环境中。社交技能和应对能力对于所有工作都很重要。软件不是例外。
不幸的是，这项研究没有使用主题内设计，因此我们无法回答很多问题。例如，私人表现不佳与公众表现的高性能相关吗？性格外向可能是正确的。另外，公共表现较差，与私人的高性能相关？私人面试可能对公开表现高性能的人没有任何改进。这是当前流行访谈的假设，本文没有提供证据来确认或拒绝。
“……所有接受公开采访的妇女都失败了，而所有接受私人采访的妇女都通过了。我们的研究是有限的，需要更大的样本量来得出牢固的结论……”我非常支持雇用更多合格的女性进入科技行业，但是这一说法是不负责任的。建议公众面试对妇女进行区分是不负责任的，同时说您没有足够的数据来支持这一主张。您是计算机科学领域的科学研究人员。社会科学和公众正在倾听。这项研究在本周的ACM技术中提到。仔细考虑您在说什么之前说的话，否则您有被误解的风险。
How might we make interviewing an equitable process for people with various mental health issues and different socioeconomic disparities? The current hiring practices are demeaning to those who don’t fit the mold of charisma and privileged academic upbringing.