Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by derefr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In general, I don't cheat, but I don't find any problem with other people cheating, either. I think the difference is that you find the axis on which you are or aren't cheating (in this conversation, a degree) important and worth ranking and measuring people against. I don't. It's a silly game and people can have whatever numbers they like if they (or, perhaps, their parents) really want them.

I like knowing that the number I got was the one I honestly deserved (this is the same reason I never, say, crammed before tests in school--the grade I got wouldn't have reflected my lasting knowledge of the subject), but I know that I can't trust anyone else's degrees/certifications/previous employments and commendations et al. to represent their honest talent/skill/dedication, so it's a bit silly to consider them any kind of useful comparative (rather than self-evaluative) measure.

Like that other poster keeps pointing out in the job threads: if you want to hire good knowledge workers, an IQ test and a work-sample test will get you further than any set of expensive status-signalling criteria ever could.

...if you want to hire good knowledge workers, an IQ test and a work-sample test will get you further than any set of expensive status-signalling criteria ever could.

I have seen data supporting that. However it could also land you in court for discrimination, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co..

Most companies are risk adverse, and hence an IQ test as an admission criteria is verboten.

I believe only the army is still allowed to do it.

My understanding is that anyone can do it if they provide a validation study showing that the IQ test directly correlates to job performance and doesn't discriminate on other protected statuses. My understanding is also that the number of companies that have done this is as close to 0 as makes no odds.

No, it can discriminate on other protected statuses as long as you can prove that the test has a direct correlation to work performance. (Actually, the decisions require 'a strong basis in evidence' of 'business necessity', which you would demonstrate by showing a strong correlation.)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano for the state of the art in I/O psych/job placement/etc.

In practice, the race baiting laws only matter for professions where black employability passes the giggle test, and any topical test can be easily designed to correlate very highly with IQ.

> I think the difference is that you find the axis on which you are or aren't cheating (in this conversation, a degree) important and worth ranking and measuring people against. I don't.

I'm perfectly happy to interview and hire people without degrees: experience counts for a lot. But lying about anything on a resume or in an interview is an immediate disqualification.

> "In general, I don't cheat ..."

If I were an employer, this statement would make me nervous about hiring you.

Why? The "In general," or the "I don't cheat..."?

In this context, "In general" negates "I don't cheat...". Of course you may just mean that "nobody's perfect". However, there are people who habitually use lying as a tool to gain an advantage or place the blame on someone else. Without the opportunity to know someone better, I'd see little lies as a sign they are this type of person.

As an employer I would be very unlikely to hire somebody I suspected of cheating. If somebody's willing to lie to get the job, I have no idea why they'd stop once they had it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com