Many people may already may know this, but Peter Norvig indicated that it correlates poorly with on the job performance (at least at Google) [1]. I wonder why, then, companies still continue to do this style of interviews.
Many people may already may know this, but Peter Norvig indicated that it correlates poorly with on the job performance (at least at Google) [1]. I wonder why, then, companies still continue to do this style of interviews.
It's not that competitive programming correlates poorly with job performance; it's that, given you've been hired by Google, being a competitive programmer correlates poorly with job performance.
Hypothetically, let's say there's 2 dimensions for a programmer's ability, competitive programming and job experience. Each of these is distributed independently from 0-10. You get hired by Google if competitive programming + job experience > 10. However, let's say that for their actual job performance, it's 0.5 x competitive programming + 1.5 x job experience.
You now have a case where competitive programming could correlate poorly with job performance at Google, despite having a positive correlation in general.