Bear Bibeault wrote:making people code on paper is ridiculous.
Amen to that.
It did also happen to me at an interview fairly recently (in the UK). Biggest waste of time ever.Edit: That's perhaps a bit strong. Not a complete waste of time but certainly not the most effective use of interview time.
Tim Cooke wrote:These sorts of "Rate your skills in x on a scale of 1 to 10?" interview questions are not the best in my opinion.
Truly. Especially as, as we all know, the better you get, the less you think you know. According to Wiki, it's called the 'Dunning-Kruger' effect - or rather, its inverse.
So, I swear by the Lords of JavaRanch, that if anyone ever asks me the question in the Subject title in an interview from now on, my answer will be "too good for you guys", and wait for their response.
If none, then either:
(a) They take me at my word.
(b) The reason they asked the question was to weed out experts because they want to pay minimum wage; in which case I never stood a chance.
(c) They actually know about Dunning-Kruger, but they're a bunch of humourless prats; in which case I probably wouldn't want to work for them anyway.
If somebody challenges me on it, on the other hand....
Nice thread. Found out about it via Jeanne's digest e-mail, BTW.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:the better you get, the less you think you know.
A colleague recently described this to me in terms of a circle.
- The area of the circle is our body of knowledge.
- The area outside of the circle is knowledge we don't have.
- The circumference of the circle is the contact point between the two and represents our awareness of unknown knowledge.
The simple idea of the analogy is that it visualises the fact that as you increase your own body of knowledge, you become aware of more and more unknown knowledge.
You could say: "The more you know, the more you know you don't know"