My friends who cheated in interviews are getting promoted (2022)(teamblind.com)
teamblind.com
My friends who cheated in interviews are getting promoted (2022)
https://www.teamblind.com/post/My-friends-who-cheated-in-interviews-are-getting-promoted-😡😡😡😡-XnYM4nLs
747 comments
I let any of my interviewees know that it is ok to use google, I just want to know what they searched for. I'm not running a trivia contest, so if they forgot the name of something or need a little refresh, that's fine.
The way I combat this is by asking questions about their current jobs, then diving deep into the technical problems they faced. It requires a lot more preparation for each candidate, but it ensures it’s not a trivia test but a discussion.
One of my favorite interviews (as an interviewer) was when a SDET candidate provided a link to their website. When I visited it there was an issue loading some page. So I asked him about it and how he would troubleshoot, then asked him to come back on Monday with a solution. On Monday, the site was fixed, and he explained to me what happened in AWS, how he figured it out, etc. So he was hired, going on 2 years now and doing very well.
I don’t need robots who can recite what a b-tree is (ChatGPT can do that). I need people who will work hard, can understand the big picture and how to approach problems, while being a good personality on the team.
One of my favorite interviews (as an interviewer) was when a SDET candidate provided a link to their website. When I visited it there was an issue loading some page. So I asked him about it and how he would troubleshoot, then asked him to come back on Monday with a solution. On Monday, the site was fixed, and he explained to me what happened in AWS, how he figured it out, etc. So he was hired, going on 2 years now and doing very well.
I don’t need robots who can recite what a b-tree is (ChatGPT can do that). I need people who will work hard, can understand the big picture and how to approach problems, while being a good personality on the team.
This.
My other favorite is very open-ended questions. I mostly do ops-y interviews, and my favorite question is "what happens when you type 'curl https://google.com' in a terminal and hit enter?"
The question is so broad there isn't a "correct" answer to Google, and it crosses enough domains that any article they find is going to be too long to skim. Then I ask them to really zero in on some aspect of it they feel comfortable with and give detail. What syscalls happen to start up curl? How does the OS know how to communicate with the local router? What's the entire flow to translate "google.com" to an IP?
It's also just fascinating to see which parts candidates latch on to. I had one person spend like 30 minutes just talking about TLS and PKI. Another person delved into kernel packet handling for a while.
My other favorite is very open-ended questions. I mostly do ops-y interviews, and my favorite question is "what happens when you type 'curl https://google.com' in a terminal and hit enter?"
The question is so broad there isn't a "correct" answer to Google, and it crosses enough domains that any article they find is going to be too long to skim. Then I ask them to really zero in on some aspect of it they feel comfortable with and give detail. What syscalls happen to start up curl? How does the OS know how to communicate with the local router? What's the entire flow to translate "google.com" to an IP?
It's also just fascinating to see which parts candidates latch on to. I had one person spend like 30 minutes just talking about TLS and PKI. Another person delved into kernel packet handling for a while.
That's what I do (instead of curl, with a browser).
MANY super cool convos spun out of this question (interviewed around 60 people). One of them never actually got to the network request part bc we went DEEP into event handlers in a GUI etc. Another candidate was all over the place with key exchange protocols and what and how can go wrong.
I usually don't ask further questions to "corner" them, let them go into any of the details they want.
Ah, I am so happy I am not the only one who invented this interview method :-)
MANY super cool convos spun out of this question (interviewed around 60 people). One of them never actually got to the network request part bc we went DEEP into event handlers in a GUI etc. Another candidate was all over the place with key exchange protocols and what and how can go wrong.
I usually don't ask further questions to "corner" them, let them go into any of the details they want.
Ah, I am so happy I am not the only one who invented this interview method :-)
This is a popular question, turns out.
https://github.com/alex/what-happens-when
https://github.com/alex/what-happens-when
Thanks for this. Looks like it's going deep into "client side".
Thing about "Google.com" (I used Facebook/Gmail) is that when server side stuff is of interest (as it was for this cloud engineer job), then I also want to hear about geo DNS, reverse proxies, LBs, CDNs, eventual consistency, distributed storage, etc, all the complexity that is happening once that cat video appears in the browser.
Then again we can go back to JS, CSS, JIT and others' space
Thing about "Google.com" (I used Facebook/Gmail) is that when server side stuff is of interest (as it was for this cloud engineer job), then I also want to hear about geo DNS, reverse proxies, LBs, CDNs, eventual consistency, distributed storage, etc, all the complexity that is happening once that cat video appears in the browser.
Then again we can go back to JS, CSS, JIT and others' space
This is the most common question for screening non-ICs like EM, TPM at Amazon.
I have a "greenfield" scenario I ask SRE candidates. I give them unlimited time, resources and money to build whatever systems they want to ensure that code is production ready before it goes to prod. The only constraint is that they will be the only person who ever has a pager, 24x7x365. Tell me how you make that work with high confidence that your life won't be ruined. It's not verbatim but that's the gist. So many paths to explore and I think it does a great job of leveling people.
[deleted]
I've only ever had to hire one person to work beneath me, but that sounds like how I ran the interview.
We were hiring students for a temp position. We're a Controls Engineering company, but my department is dealing with more traditional languages for supporting applications and needed extra help for a bigger project. I know the tech we use isn't standard in the university so the interview was asking students about how they approached their major projects and their methodology for learning new tools/languages.
The first guy who straight up said "I already know enough of C++ and Java, I suppose I'd just google how to do x in c# and branch from there" got the job. Because...yeah, that's about it. We talked about a 4th year project and what his responsibilities in the team where, problems faced, solutions found, etc.
We were hiring students for a temp position. We're a Controls Engineering company, but my department is dealing with more traditional languages for supporting applications and needed extra help for a bigger project. I know the tech we use isn't standard in the university so the interview was asking students about how they approached their major projects and their methodology for learning new tools/languages.
The first guy who straight up said "I already know enough of C++ and Java, I suppose I'd just google how to do x in c# and branch from there" got the job. Because...yeah, that's about it. We talked about a 4th year project and what his responsibilities in the team where, problems faced, solutions found, etc.
This is how I was interviewed when I was a scientist/engineer and how I got interviewed at gov labs when I switched to programming. I still refreshed material for my interviews but they were focused on the actual job areas. I was really shocked that this was not common in the software world and feels weird that as an AI research people are asking me about leet code and not about mathematical formulas, limitations, and analysis of architectures or my own research. PhD scientist interviews (at labs and universities) are essentially a short form of people's discretions with a focus on Q&A. It's always appeared successful to me and I figured that the leet code was always because 1) momentum and 2) there's so many applications that an arbitrary filter has no realistic effect on outcomes other than reducing the number of candidates (due to the difficulties of measuring merit). (Similar to university admissions) But I think we all have to admit that meritocracy is not realistic and act under this belief. It's fine to have arbitrary filters if we recognize them as arbitrary but not if we go around and tout superiority for passing these. But I guess that's a corollary to Goodhart's Law
Because those fields are currently too limited and that would only work for researchers that are exactly in the field the company wants talent for.
Researchers' fields/interests are too narrow, by far, for companies to find enough candidates. Machine learning departments go from low thousands (FANG) to maybe a dozen individuals on the low end (small regional banks, ...). That adds up to let's say 40.000 jobs worldwide.
Plus there's the non-cheating cheating. The majority of conferences (including ICLR/NIPS/CVPR) are still presentations by companies about how they "innovated" by letting an intern use 10-year old techniques, in an established library (ie. not pytorch, but an "integrated" solution, sometimes going as far as an Oracle tool) to look at their own proprietary data (in medical, social sciences, sometimes chemistry). This then delivers them a "paper", goes into the conference proceedings, and they make sure this delivers dozens, sometimes hundreds of citations for all individuals involved.
Don't get me wrong. Delivering a major paper at those conferences is a major, incredible accomplishment that's beyond me, for example. But there's 20-30 people on a yearly basis that "really"/honestly do that and over 5000 total presentations at those conferences. And there's 10000 or more candidates needed to fill positions at companies.
And then the question is: who would you rather hire? A math phd, or frankly even a CS master with no relevant machine learning papers, or that intern?
Researchers' fields/interests are too narrow, by far, for companies to find enough candidates. Machine learning departments go from low thousands (FANG) to maybe a dozen individuals on the low end (small regional banks, ...). That adds up to let's say 40.000 jobs worldwide.
Plus there's the non-cheating cheating. The majority of conferences (including ICLR/NIPS/CVPR) are still presentations by companies about how they "innovated" by letting an intern use 10-year old techniques, in an established library (ie. not pytorch, but an "integrated" solution, sometimes going as far as an Oracle tool) to look at their own proprietary data (in medical, social sciences, sometimes chemistry). This then delivers them a "paper", goes into the conference proceedings, and they make sure this delivers dozens, sometimes hundreds of citations for all individuals involved.
Don't get me wrong. Delivering a major paper at those conferences is a major, incredible accomplishment that's beyond me, for example. But there's 20-30 people on a yearly basis that "really"/honestly do that and over 5000 total presentations at those conferences. And there's 10000 or more candidates needed to fill positions at companies.
And then the question is: who would you rather hire? A math phd, or frankly even a CS master with no relevant machine learning papers, or that intern?
The fact that most employers aren’t like you is keeping me from starting interviewing for a job after nearly 2 years of sabbatical. I simply refuse to participate in the typical interviewing process where I simply cannot show my skillset, 20+ years of experience and my diligence.
They are out there - when I was looking a few years back I would ask what the interview process is like. If whiteboard, I politely refused and tactfully said why. You won't be taking any FANGG positions, but there are plenty of positions out there that pay FANGG money minus the interview overhead. I've had some pretty great interviews when it turns into a conversation about a previous solution, or a project I'm working on, which have led to almost 100% offers. In contrast, I would do absolutely horrid in whiteboard or quiz-like interviews. Some people are built for it, but that's not me.
I had several bad experiences right out of school - I would regularly do programming exercises for recruiters and wasted a lot of my time I will never get back. Some of those exercises would take 3 to 5 hours, and I was told I was one of the faster candidates :/
Once I was able to build a resume and show off projects I told myself I would never go through that experience again.
I don't know if this comment will help you at all, but good luck to you! If you are in the Midwest area I know of a recruiter or two that are great people and can help get you pointed in the right direction. My email is in my profile.
I had several bad experiences right out of school - I would regularly do programming exercises for recruiters and wasted a lot of my time I will never get back. Some of those exercises would take 3 to 5 hours, and I was told I was one of the faster candidates :/
Once I was able to build a resume and show off projects I told myself I would never go through that experience again.
I don't know if this comment will help you at all, but good luck to you! If you are in the Midwest area I know of a recruiter or two that are great people and can help get you pointed in the right direction. My email is in my profile.
Thank you, I appreciate you sharing your experience, it hits close home. I have moved back to Europe, but am actually looking at remote positions in the US. And thank you for your offer, I’ll take you up on that!
The problem is no matter how much training or systems a company has for its interviewing process, employees won’t read it and will inconsistently interview candidates (couldn’t remember List method == red flag; another interviewer rightly wouldn’t ding someone for this). I think interviewers really need to develop their critical thinking skills in how they judge talent. I’d rather have someone who wasn’t able to solve part three of an interview problem but high leveled some decent approaches that indicate, given more time, they’d be able to solve it. It’s interesting to me that we place this artificial time barrier on many interviews when in reality work is not chunked out that way and often takes quite a bit of thinking to come up with good solutions to things. On the other hand, I don’t think take home tests are a good solution for interviewing either. I think a lot of interviewers just end up copy catting whoever they trained with when watching interviews as a shadow (if they even had this opportunity).
I always gave open book exams to my students. They don't need to memorize details, but show understanding. Questions would range between "find the page in the book" to "can't answer it if you don't understand the subject matter."
Interviewing is a bit different, since there's no book, but when we looked for a junior dev, the applicants got a laptop with VS Code, the common browsers, internet access and an empty (macOS guest) account, and a few (short!) tasks to show if they understood the questions and were able to start formulating an answer. We also looked for a personality match (we're a small company) and signs of general intelligence. Worked out reasonably well.
I really dislike the more extreme approaches to interviewing that one sometimes comes across, like leet code scores. That's just too disconnected from the actual work. Unless you need your employee to grind leet code questions, of course.
Interviewing is a bit different, since there's no book, but when we looked for a junior dev, the applicants got a laptop with VS Code, the common browsers, internet access and an empty (macOS guest) account, and a few (short!) tasks to show if they understood the questions and were able to start formulating an answer. We also looked for a personality match (we're a small company) and signs of general intelligence. Worked out reasonably well.
I really dislike the more extreme approaches to interviewing that one sometimes comes across, like leet code scores. That's just too disconnected from the actual work. Unless you need your employee to grind leet code questions, of course.
I expect my interviewees to use Google and am disappointed if they don't. It's more important to me that they know how to find the right answer than it is that they just know it off the top of their head. 90% of their time is going to be spent figuring out how to solve all the known-unknowns they're going to come across.
As long as you tell them they can, that seems great. I think it's normal for people being interviewed to assume they can't use any outside assistance.
Yup! If I see them struggling to answer a question or admit to not knowing something I will ask them "well, how would you find the answer?", to which they always half-jokingly answer "I'd Google it". That's when I'll let them know that I want to see some of that too!
Why? You'll have access to google when you're working so I would assume you're allowed to google stuff during the interview.
Because people administering tests always have weird or arbitrary assumptions and restrictions. Part of getting through school is jumping through all the contrived hoops they place before you, even when it'd be much easier to just walk around the hoops. Job interviews are no different; different interviewers have different expectations, and many don't want you consulting outside information sources.
Ditto, 20 years on and I research and read articles when I start any new project because in one year there can be entire paradigm shifts in tooling and best practices.
yeah same. it's not a recitation / memorization challenge, it's an honest "if you ran into X at work, show me what would you do" exercise. It's hard to imagine an answer that doesn't start with "I'd probably google it." How do you evaluate the quality of the search results? How would you scan a page to quickly find the salient details? How would you test what you'd found to determine whether it was an effective solution? etc.
Tangentially related…
Life insurance companies (in the USA 20 years ago when I sold it) would require a medical exam for every life insurance application. If the applicant commits fraud by having someone else take the examination (usually a blood draw, height and weight measurement, and maybe a heart EKG for bigger policies), the policy is considered valid after two years. Even if the insurance company finds out fraud was committed, the benefit payout is guaranteed after two years.
Life insurance companies (in the USA 20 years ago when I sold it) would require a medical exam for every life insurance application. If the applicant commits fraud by having someone else take the examination (usually a blood draw, height and weight measurement, and maybe a heart EKG for bigger policies), the policy is considered valid after two years. Even if the insurance company finds out fraud was committed, the benefit payout is guaranteed after two years.
The implication being that after 2 years the immediate risk of death the insurance company wants to protect itself against did not come to pass, so the policy holder should not have the risk of losing their policy to a post mortem determination of fraud from the insurer despite believing they were insured.
Taken back to the fraud in interviews, you could make the same argument that after some time working on the job and not gettimg fired, the risk of getting someone not actually qualified did not come to pass, so its more useful to look at the employees current performance than their original fraudulent interview.
Taken back to the fraud in interviews, you could make the same argument that after some time working on the job and not gettimg fired, the risk of getting someone not actually qualified did not come to pass, so its more useful to look at the employees current performance than their original fraudulent interview.
But the bar for firing is below the bar for hiring.
This is true not only because of status quo bias, sunk cost etc., but also because employers will often try really hard and be very patient, in the hope that an employee's performance will improve.
This is true not only because of status quo bias, sunk cost etc., but also because employers will often try really hard and be very patient, in the hope that an employee's performance will improve.
Sounds similar to how (most? all?) life insurance policies will pay out for suicide after a two-year waiting period - the idea being that those who are dedicated enough to plan out that far in advance don't actually end up going through with it, or it's a rounding error.
So perhaps the medical exam stuff should be swapped around; everyone can get life insurance, but if you want payout for certain things to kick in before two years, you get a medical and pass.
So perhaps the medical exam stuff should be swapped around; everyone can get life insurance, but if you want payout for certain things to kick in before two years, you get a medical and pass.
I think any insurance company would have a lifelong suicide exclusion if they could. I’m pretty sure they are legally obligated to pay after two years, as it’s be too easy for nearly any insurance company to claim most deaths were possibly a suicide. The main point being that you can’t pay the mortgage on your house, which may be the sole reason you got life insurance, if the benefits aren’t being paid out.
Also, there are some policies that do have limited benefits the first two years. This is especially common for any type of insurance that doesn’t require a medical exam. They tend to be very expensive for the amount of insurance they provide, but maybe have a manageable monthly payment because the amount of coverage is relatively low. This type of insurance is usually “I can’t qualify for anything else” coverage, or it’s for a very specific purpose, like paying for funeral expenses when for some reason the person didn’t have the desire to just save that money in the bank.
Also, there are some policies that do have limited benefits the first two years. This is especially common for any type of insurance that doesn’t require a medical exam. They tend to be very expensive for the amount of insurance they provide, but maybe have a manageable monthly payment because the amount of coverage is relatively low. This type of insurance is usually “I can’t qualify for anything else” coverage, or it’s for a very specific purpose, like paying for funeral expenses when for some reason the person didn’t have the desire to just save that money in the bank.
> I think any insurance company would have a lifelong suicide exclusion if they could
I suspect you're right.
There certainly are desperate people who go to Vegas, lose their entire savings, and choose to end their life because they're not willing to put in the work to continue trying to survive for another, say, 40 years, starting with zero assets.
There are also people with severe mental illness (poor/no executive function, prone to psychotic episodes, imbalances in their brain chemistry) who make poor choices or don't even consciously make choices but their body is nonetheless doing things, who end up also choosing to end their lives.
There is overlap between these two groups. How could an insurance company decide which is which? If cancer can kill you and they pay out for that, why would they not pay out for deaths due to mental illness? Because they can. We're becoming more willing to talk about mental health, but there's still a ways to go.
There's a ton of stuff that can go wrong with the mind and I couldn't hazard a guess at what proportion of people are 100% okay.
I suspect you're right.
There certainly are desperate people who go to Vegas, lose their entire savings, and choose to end their life because they're not willing to put in the work to continue trying to survive for another, say, 40 years, starting with zero assets.
There are also people with severe mental illness (poor/no executive function, prone to psychotic episodes, imbalances in their brain chemistry) who make poor choices or don't even consciously make choices but their body is nonetheless doing things, who end up also choosing to end their lives.
There is overlap between these two groups. How could an insurance company decide which is which? If cancer can kill you and they pay out for that, why would they not pay out for deaths due to mental illness? Because they can. We're becoming more willing to talk about mental health, but there's still a ways to go.
There's a ton of stuff that can go wrong with the mind and I couldn't hazard a guess at what proportion of people are 100% okay.
There’s also probably some social bias. In the US, we have a strong bias towards self-determinism and saying someone did something because (in-effect) they are pre-wired to make that deterministic action flies in the face of social conventions about individual free will. There are always some policies that are shot down because they run against social normative ideas, even if those ideas are shown to be false.
(The free will vs determinism is obviously overly simplistic above)
(The free will vs determinism is obviously overly simplistic above)
The problem for the industry with the "no questions asked" plans is the only people who sign up for them are the ones who have no other option, which makes them more expensive, which makes the only people who sign up for them ... etc etc etc.
Yes. There’s a few factors:
- higher premiums for everyone because the pool of applicants aren’t that healthy
- the super sick people simply die in the first two years
- the semi sick people can hang on for years, but weak health may me limited ability to pay because of limited employment prospects
- the not sick people will find better prices or simply realize the insurance is overpriced and cancel it
- higher premiums for everyone because the pool of applicants aren’t that healthy
- the super sick people simply die in the first two years
- the semi sick people can hang on for years, but weak health may me limited ability to pay because of limited employment prospects
- the not sick people will find better prices or simply realize the insurance is overpriced and cancel it
I don't understand how #2 and #3 would be considered cheating?
If they can still answer the question and show evidence that they understand it, what's wrong with reference materials and googling?
If they can still answer the question and show evidence that they understand it, what's wrong with reference materials and googling?
There are different issues of "is this an honest interviewee?" and "is this a good interview?" and you're welcome to argue the latter all you like but the solution to a bad interviewer isn't just to cheat because you don't like it.
Context matters. If you're looking to see "have you really done security stuff?" by mentioning some OWASP Top 10 vulns and asking for a quick description, for somebody that has indeed done any security at all that will be trivially easy and anybody else will need to google it. Can they skim google and get you an intelligeable answer? Maybe but that's not what you're looking for, the question itself is a proxy for something else.
For most of my interviews I tell folk up front to google whatever they need to. But at the very very earliest stage of the interview loop we do a quick "programmer is a big field, what kind are you?" round so we know how to place people and the questions we use for it are all trivially easy for somebody even remotely familiar with the fields we're looking at and also trivially googleable for anybody else. The goal with that piece isn't to challenge people it's just to round their skillset to the nearest role that we have. I've caught people retyping code, pretending to be inventing it, from what's clearly the first article they found when they googled the keywords. It was never intended to be a hard problem, just something to quickly tell an infrastructure from a frontend engineer. It was more or less bitwise identical to the article they were retyping from and they couldn't explain the code or modify it. That doesn't even accomplish what they want, even if it worked we'd then go on to interview them for a job they couldn't do.
Again you can argue about whether that's a good practise or not but it's still not licence to simply cheat on it. You're conflating these and and I think it's not the right thing to do.
Context matters. If you're looking to see "have you really done security stuff?" by mentioning some OWASP Top 10 vulns and asking for a quick description, for somebody that has indeed done any security at all that will be trivially easy and anybody else will need to google it. Can they skim google and get you an intelligeable answer? Maybe but that's not what you're looking for, the question itself is a proxy for something else.
For most of my interviews I tell folk up front to google whatever they need to. But at the very very earliest stage of the interview loop we do a quick "programmer is a big field, what kind are you?" round so we know how to place people and the questions we use for it are all trivially easy for somebody even remotely familiar with the fields we're looking at and also trivially googleable for anybody else. The goal with that piece isn't to challenge people it's just to round their skillset to the nearest role that we have. I've caught people retyping code, pretending to be inventing it, from what's clearly the first article they found when they googled the keywords. It was never intended to be a hard problem, just something to quickly tell an infrastructure from a frontend engineer. It was more or less bitwise identical to the article they were retyping from and they couldn't explain the code or modify it. That doesn't even accomplish what they want, even if it worked we'd then go on to interview them for a job they couldn't do.
Again you can argue about whether that's a good practise or not but it's still not licence to simply cheat on it. You're conflating these and and I think it's not the right thing to do.
I lol’ed at the Paper Stack Overflow error.
I'm so curious about that last one. You interviewed and accepted one person, but a different person showed up to actually work? If so, that's incredibly bizarre.
There’s lots of stories of this happening. Especially once video interviews have become common making the grift easier. Example: https://www.askamanager.org/2022/01/the-new-hire-who-showed-...
Apparently this is moderately common especially during remote Covid work; there were some discussions of it on HN, even to where the person interviewed and accepted was not the person working, and apparently the work was being done by an entire group of people.
Been remote since 2015 and not gonna lie, thought about finding contractors on Fiverr or e-Lance (or whatever e-Lance is called these days) to do just that.
Basically become a PM for a team of four Vietenamese kids and pull in pay from 3 gigs.
I later did some contracting on the side of a full-time job in 2018 and it was hard -- confusion and burnout set in quickly. But still think about the offshoring approach sometimes...
Basically become a PM for a team of four Vietenamese kids and pull in pay from 3 gigs.
I later did some contracting on the side of a full-time job in 2018 and it was hard -- confusion and burnout set in quickly. But still think about the offshoring approach sometimes...
There's any number of stories about it being done, but anyone who has tried working this way realizes that you either need very skilled underlings or you spend most of the time managing it anyway and could have done it yourself quicker.
Hey, I'm looking for remote work. Lets talk? Email in the profile.
How does this impact taxes and other liability overhead on your part?
Yup. We did a couple phone screens. Person we interviewed knocked it out of the park. Solid answers with historical background on it, we liked the way they solved problems. Most of the team was part of the interview process.
The new person started and we realized the person that came in had no more information on what/how we had talked about in the interviews than we did. What was done easily over a screen share was well outside of what this person was capable of. In the interview, solid yanking/putting in VIM - in person, unable to save/close, for example. He was present -- we did wonder if the recruiter we worked with had a paperwork mistake, so asked a few bits about our interview and while he could parrot bits of the answer and our discussion, he could not come close to actually hitting the why or next steps like he did in the interview.
That was the point where a camera was required for the interview, for us.
The new person started and we realized the person that came in had no more information on what/how we had talked about in the interviews than we did. What was done easily over a screen share was well outside of what this person was capable of. In the interview, solid yanking/putting in VIM - in person, unable to save/close, for example. He was present -- we did wonder if the recruiter we worked with had a paperwork mistake, so asked a few bits about our interview and while he could parrot bits of the answer and our discussion, he could not come close to actually hitting the why or next steps like he did in the interview.
That was the point where a camera was required for the interview, for us.
>interviewed one person and had a different one show up
I'm always amazed at the extent people go to to cheat. It gets to the point that you're putting in more effort than you would have to be successful without cheating.
I sometimes feel some people simply enjoy cheating too much. Its not about accomplishing a goal by any means necessary, its something about doing something wrong that certain people seem to enjoy.
I'm always amazed at the extent people go to to cheat. It gets to the point that you're putting in more effort than you would have to be successful without cheating.
I sometimes feel some people simply enjoy cheating too much. Its not about accomplishing a goal by any means necessary, its something about doing something wrong that certain people seem to enjoy.
In the pandemic when hiring was remote this was very prevalent in my country.
This became kind of a business where a person sells his services to help you cheat by appearing instead of you in the video interview and also helps you with the work after you got the job.
This became kind of a business where a person sells his services to help you cheat by appearing instead of you in the video interview and also helps you with the work after you got the job.
- Modern problems require modern solutions. This sounds creative and ballsy. I'd be intrigued to see more.
- If the answers are so basic and guessable that one can both find and then deal with a printer to commit it to slow-RAM physical legacy memory, then the problem is not with the candidate
- People with such little self awareness that fail to perceive this problem have demonstrated why you don't want to work with them. The problem is not the fact that they were hotfixing answers straight to prod
- This was just a reverse racial discrimination security test. By identifying the non-authenticated user, you both demonstrated exemplary awareness of identity phishing attacks as well as a base standard that 2 people aren't the same based on their protected identity criteria
- If the answers are so basic and guessable that one can both find and then deal with a printer to commit it to slow-RAM physical legacy memory, then the problem is not with the candidate
- People with such little self awareness that fail to perceive this problem have demonstrated why you don't want to work with them. The problem is not the fact that they were hotfixing answers straight to prod
- This was just a reverse racial discrimination security test. By identifying the non-authenticated user, you both demonstrated exemplary awareness of identity phishing attacks as well as a base standard that 2 people aren't the same based on their protected identity criteria
What I don't understand is... these are pre-screening interviews at companies that get tons of applicants, right?
What happens during the actual in-person interview that follows ??
What happens during the actual in-person interview that follows ??
A lot of 'on sites' were remote during the pandemic, and a lot of roles now are remote, so may not have an 'on site' at all.
All the big tech companies I’ve spoke with over the past several months were still doing virtual “on site” interview loops.
Not even at the local branches ??
Many companies aren’t ginormous with branches everywhere.
Google Meet is cheaper than a flight & hotel room.
Google Meet is cheaper than a flight & hotel room.
And yet all the examples so far have been of "ginormous" companies, haven't they ?
I hired on during the pandemic for what would be considered a ‘ginormous’ organization. I never went on-site for about 2 years. I believe my employer tried to mitigate it through more extensive reference checks and a very long probationary period.
Yes, it's fundamentally unfair to those interviewees who don't cheat. And the process is broken. However, the conclusion this person reaches - we must conduct these broken interviews in person so the cheaters can't cheat - is the wrong one.
Look at it from the point of view of the hiring company now, not the interviewer. They got a person who was good enough (based on the merits of their actual work, not interview performance) to subsequently get promoted. So, hiring mission accomplished, end of story. They may not have found the very best person for the job (very subjective and unknowable anyway), but if the process didn't result in an under-performer taking the job, the process did not fail. And, importantly, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if no cheating was allowed and a different person took the job, that they would on average be any better.
Look at it from the point of view of the hiring company now, not the interviewer. They got a person who was good enough (based on the merits of their actual work, not interview performance) to subsequently get promoted. So, hiring mission accomplished, end of story. They may not have found the very best person for the job (very subjective and unknowable anyway), but if the process didn't result in an under-performer taking the job, the process did not fail. And, importantly, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if no cheating was allowed and a different person took the job, that they would on average be any better.
Isn't there an alternative interpretation, that the internal evaluation process is just as broken as the hiring process?
It is more likely that the internal evaluations process is working fine. There are >$200k salaries on offer and the challenges Amazon et al. are dealing with aren't that demanding on an absolute scale. There are a lot of smart people out there.
The interview process is probably calibrated more like a rationing system than a ranking system. They'd have too many capable hires applying for each job.
The interview process is probably calibrated more like a rationing system than a ranking system. They'd have too many capable hires applying for each job.
Correct. You have unethical people now, you are probably “cheating” at work by taking credit for ideas not theirs.
But that means the culture is also broken. Credit isn’t something you can steal in the dead of night; everyone knows who did the work.
At some point, if someone says their company hires cheaters, promotes thieves, and has a culture that celebrates those things. . . either there is more to the story or that person needs to run like hell because the company is toxic.
At some point, if someone says their company hires cheaters, promotes thieves, and has a culture that celebrates those things. . . either there is more to the story or that person needs to run like hell because the company is toxic.
> Credit isn’t something you can steal in the dead of night; everyone knows who did the work.
Sadly, that's not how it works in practice. In fact, a person I worked with was the perfect counter-example.
As an SEM, he routinely portrayed his engineers' ideas as his own when talking to senior management, he committed to unrealistic timelines, shipped utterly broken code to meet those timelines, then cast blame on other teams for the brokenness. (E.g. blaming the mobile team for broken responses in his team's backend APIs). Things like that.
At some point, it became sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because senior management saw him as the guy who delivered, they dismissed the complaints about his behaviours as the cost of doing business, so they never really acknowledged that he wasn't delivering in the first place, so the people complaining were cast as jealous b-tier whiners.
Sadly, that's not how it works in practice. In fact, a person I worked with was the perfect counter-example.
As an SEM, he routinely portrayed his engineers' ideas as his own when talking to senior management, he committed to unrealistic timelines, shipped utterly broken code to meet those timelines, then cast blame on other teams for the brokenness. (E.g. blaming the mobile team for broken responses in his team's backend APIs). Things like that.
At some point, it became sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because senior management saw him as the guy who delivered, they dismissed the complaints about his behaviours as the cost of doing business, so they never really acknowledged that he wasn't delivering in the first place, so the people complaining were cast as jealous b-tier whiners.
Seen the exact same personality at many employers, it's like they all come from the same factory. I can smell it a mile away now.
OP is right though, that all CreditTaker's peers know he isn't doing any of the work, but it doesn't matter because companies are hierarchal and CreditTaker is the only one talking to execs above him, so his story is what gets passed around as reality. His peers who know the truth are too busy doing the actual work.
OP is right though, that all CreditTaker's peers know he isn't doing any of the work, but it doesn't matter because companies are hierarchal and CreditTaker is the only one talking to execs above him, so his story is what gets passed around as reality. His peers who know the truth are too busy doing the actual work.
Exactly. I commented to a different person, but I will repeat it here.
Taking credit doesn't look just one way. Very few mid-level management types will delegate work then when the work is completed they go to their direct report and say "Hey look what I created all by myself with no help. Pretty great huh!?" What happens more commonly is that they will delegate a project to team members A & B and have them come up with a solution to a problem. When the project is complete A & B show it to manager I. Manager I then goes to manager II and says "Here is what my team came up with as a solution to our current problem." Manager I had little to no involvement in the work or development of the solution, but they present it as though they had. That happens constantly in the working world. A good manager and leader will always mention, by name, who did the work.
Taking credit doesn't look just one way. Very few mid-level management types will delegate work then when the work is completed they go to their direct report and say "Hey look what I created all by myself with no help. Pretty great huh!?" What happens more commonly is that they will delegate a project to team members A & B and have them come up with a solution to a problem. When the project is complete A & B show it to manager I. Manager I then goes to manager II and says "Here is what my team came up with as a solution to our current problem." Manager I had little to no involvement in the work or development of the solution, but they present it as though they had. That happens constantly in the working world. A good manager and leader will always mention, by name, who did the work.
And it keeps going. Manager II will tell Manager III "Here are the things my org has done!" and Manager III will tell VP "Here is what my product line has achieved!" and VP will tell CEO "Here is how profitable my business unit is!" and CEO will tell the board and the world "Behold what I have done!"
It's credit-taking all the way up.
It's credit-taking all the way up.
>> everyone knows who did the work.
Not the people deciding rankings and promotions.
Consider that every manager, over the course of a year, has things they want done but which they can't directly task people to do because those people either have defined job responsibilities or require a job code to charge their time while performing the task (which the manager can't, or won't, provide.)
Now consider that there are some employees that care more about doing what their manager wants than they care for doing their job (shocking I know.) They will happily take on the 'extra-credit' tasks without regard for any collateral consequences because when it comes time for annual reviews the manager will place them at the head of the queue for promotion.
And yes that does mean that the culture is broken and it's probably why so many people hate their jobs.
Not the people deciding rankings and promotions.
Consider that every manager, over the course of a year, has things they want done but which they can't directly task people to do because those people either have defined job responsibilities or require a job code to charge their time while performing the task (which the manager can't, or won't, provide.)
Now consider that there are some employees that care more about doing what their manager wants than they care for doing their job (shocking I know.) They will happily take on the 'extra-credit' tasks without regard for any collateral consequences because when it comes time for annual reviews the manager will place them at the head of the queue for promotion.
And yes that does mean that the culture is broken and it's probably why so many people hate their jobs.
>But that means the culture is also broken. Credit isn’t something you can steal in the dead of night; everyone knows who did the work.
I'm not sure that is true. Plenty of mid level management types will assign work to the people they oversee on their team. Then never make mention of who actually performed the work when they present the completed product to the folks above them. It is incredibly common. One way this also happens is to have a mid-level manager delegate a project to someone. They quite literally do all the work. Then they present it as a team effort later on when it wasn't because as a team effort it gives the appearance of their involvement.
Taking credit by omission of information is still taking credit.
I'm not sure that is true. Plenty of mid level management types will assign work to the people they oversee on their team. Then never make mention of who actually performed the work when they present the completed product to the folks above them. It is incredibly common. One way this also happens is to have a mid-level manager delegate a project to someone. They quite literally do all the work. Then they present it as a team effort later on when it wasn't because as a team effort it gives the appearance of their involvement.
Taking credit by omission of information is still taking credit.
Many "upper management" types have no idea who actually did the work.
They care more about “who made it happen”.
That PM who can barely open a spreadsheet made it happen, of course.
Everyone knows who committed which piece of code. It's much less clear the origin of ideas. Did my comments spark an idea in your head? Did you share that with someone else who made it slightly better? If so, what's the split among me, you, and the third person for that idea?
If we surveyed the three of us and asked for the percentage contribution, that would typically add up to more than 100%.
If we surveyed the three of us and asked for the percentage contribution, that would typically add up to more than 100%.
This same process can be applied on a community/country level.
Trust is invaluable, and you will not see its savings enumerated on the P&L, but lack of trust will eventually find itself on the P&L, due to ever increasing costs.
Trust is invaluable, and you will not see its savings enumerated on the P&L, but lack of trust will eventually find itself on the P&L, due to ever increasing costs.
> ... because the company is toxic
I mean one of the companies they mention is Amazon
I mean one of the companies they mention is Amazon
Amazon might be unethical or immoral or unpleasant, but it is extremely successful at its founder's goal.
It has succeeded at making Bezos money.
It has become the premier cloud provider. That wasn't the original goal, but it's good for them.
As a marketplace it is degenerating into an absolute mess. The force that maintains Prime membership is about 70% inertia.
It has become the premier cloud provider. That wasn't the original goal, but it's good for them.
As a marketplace it is degenerating into an absolute mess. The force that maintains Prime membership is about 70% inertia.
One can imagine AWS surviving longer than the marketplace in 10-20y
Or they're the "smartest guys in the room!"
/s
/s
Depending on the corporate culture: feature, not a bug.
Possibly. But if that's the case, the best thing that can happen is for bullshiters to fill up all of the positions there and drive the company down fast as possible.
I have lots of sympathy for people that lose time discarding cheaters from their hiring processes, or that hire people just to immediately fire them due to cheating. But if they are promoting those cheaters, then they are the fraudulent ones.
I have lots of sympathy for people that lose time discarding cheaters from their hiring processes, or that hire people just to immediately fire them due to cheating. But if they are promoting those cheaters, then they are the fraudulent ones.
There is another, even more cynical, interpretation. They may have been discovered to be incompetent, and promoted into a role where they can do less damage.
And an interpretation more cynical than that:
The manager who hired them can either a) fire them, admitting they made a mistake, and taking a headcount and budget reduction; or b) promote them, congratulating themselves for the successful hire and increasing the budget.
Nobody gets promoted to stop doing damage, they get fired. Contrary to popular belief, it's not difficult to fire people, less so incompetent people.
The manager who hired them can either a) fire them, admitting they made a mistake, and taking a headcount and budget reduction; or b) promote them, congratulating themselves for the successful hire and increasing the budget.
Nobody gets promoted to stop doing damage, they get fired. Contrary to popular belief, it's not difficult to fire people, less so incompetent people.
People get kicked upstairs to sinecures all the time
How about the lack of personal ethics correlating with success in what we know to be highly unethical companies…
In that case, the market should take them out, right?
Only if the other companies perform better, but since they also might have a corrupted culture that may not be the case. Also, relying on "the market" to fix things can take decades so it is not really a useful strategy for individuals.
If the other companies don’t perform better, then this company has found a process that works (I mean not filtering to only select people who play leetcode is a pretty good idea, the only questionable thing is asking leetcode style questions in the first place if they don’t need that data).
If a company lasts decades, that’s a pretty good success. Not every company can be IBM, and the world is probably better off without too many IBMs.
If a company lasts decades, that’s a pretty good success. Not every company can be IBM, and the world is probably better off without too many IBMs.
A venal, decrepit empire can last for hundreds of years.
Amazon is large enough to maintain market dominance via strategies other than technical excellence.
So then why hire technically excellent people? They might expect excellent salaries or excellent working conditions.
It may still be worth hiring those people if it prevents them going to competitors. Even if you also hire a bunch of mid-range devs that cheat or get lucky. It's a classic example of uncompetitive practices being very wasteful but lucrative to the directors.
That's like asking why do kings buy wonderful artworks when they could save their gold and hang mediocre artworks on their wall?
Either it's because they have very refined tastes and value aesthetics over money, or...
Either it's because they have very refined tastes and value aesthetics over money, or...
I would think technical employees would have an analogy closer to useful things like tools, rather than aesthetic stuff like art. But I’m not sure what the analogy is getting us here, anyway.
Anyway, a king that hoards priceless art seems worse? The good stuff belongs in a museum visible to the public, not a private collection or walled off throne room. And lots of the art (jewelry for example) produced for royals was just expensive gaudy crap anyway, a waste of gold.
Anyway, a king that hoards priceless art seems worse? The good stuff belongs in a museum visible to the public, not a private collection or walled off throne room. And lots of the art (jewelry for example) produced for royals was just expensive gaudy crap anyway, a waste of gold.
It's a bit like their abysmal process for detecting product fakes and review fakes.
It seems those that have a fundamental problem with cheating are in the minority. Reading through the comments leaves me only sad.
Based on how I believe the world works, and on larger patterns at play here, this general cultural trend (if this is in fact what it is) will backfire.
If this is deemed culturally acceptable, and one extrapolates this pattern further, there is little deeper value that a culture has to offer.
Based on how I believe the world works, and on larger patterns at play here, this general cultural trend (if this is in fact what it is) will backfire.
If this is deemed culturally acceptable, and one extrapolates this pattern further, there is little deeper value that a culture has to offer.
Exactly. They are benefiting from a system built on generations of honesty of people before them.
Everything becomes more expensive and dangerous when there isn't basic trust. You have to verify, surveil, and credential everything.
Old people get scammed not because they are dumb, but because they grew up in a society insulated from dishonesty.
Everything becomes more expensive and dangerous when there isn't basic trust. You have to verify, surveil, and credential everything.
Old people get scammed not because they are dumb, but because they grew up in a society insulated from dishonesty.
I think the cheaters tend to end up together over time without realizing it.
I’m not sure it’s a cultural trend, but I’d say users of Blind are not the typically developer. That’s not to dismiss it, but that a subset of a population will always have dishonest people.
How do you think the world has always worked?
>>Yes, it's fundamentally unfair to those interviewees who don't cheat. And the process is broken. However, the conclusion this person reaches - we must conduct these broken interviews in person so the cheaters can't cheat - is the wrong one.
Correct! Making a harder-to-cheat "closed-book-test" isn't the answer.
A better answer would be to make it "open-book" — allow and expect interviewees to have their full libraries and reference sites open and ready to go. This is actually how they will be doing their work (we hope!). Then judge on efficient lookups AND insightful comments on how to build upon the found knowledge.
Or, based on the above sample recognize that the process is really totally broken, that almost anyone coming in will work out well (the cheaters clearly lacked the skill or confidence of OP, yet did fine in the actual job), and either fix the criteria (obviously difficult based on the last decade of HN discussions on the hiring sh^tshows), or just cut wasting resources on extensive interviews and take the first N applicants and be done with it.
Correct! Making a harder-to-cheat "closed-book-test" isn't the answer.
A better answer would be to make it "open-book" — allow and expect interviewees to have their full libraries and reference sites open and ready to go. This is actually how they will be doing their work (we hope!). Then judge on efficient lookups AND insightful comments on how to build upon the found knowledge.
Or, based on the above sample recognize that the process is really totally broken, that almost anyone coming in will work out well (the cheaters clearly lacked the skill or confidence of OP, yet did fine in the actual job), and either fix the criteria (obviously difficult based on the last decade of HN discussions on the hiring sh^tshows), or just cut wasting resources on extensive interviews and take the first N applicants and be done with it.
Or how about, you know, stop pretending we can evaluate someone's "intelligence" or "skill level" as if it's a one-dimensional factor that you have superhuman insight into measuring.
I'm satisfied, in an interview, if I feel the person is interested in the topic, is able to admit that they don't know something, and seems like they'd be pleasant (although i'd settle for "not difficult") to work with.
The breadth and depth of their knowledge is secondary and it's always a gamble because people excel at putting up very convincing façades of whatever it is that they think they're being evaluated for.
People have different things to offer, and you really don't find out until at least 6-12 months into their employment what they really excel at, you have no chance in 30-60 minute (or whatever) interview.
The best you can hope for is to rule out the obvious sociopaths.
I'm satisfied, in an interview, if I feel the person is interested in the topic, is able to admit that they don't know something, and seems like they'd be pleasant (although i'd settle for "not difficult") to work with.
The breadth and depth of their knowledge is secondary and it's always a gamble because people excel at putting up very convincing façades of whatever it is that they think they're being evaluated for.
People have different things to offer, and you really don't find out until at least 6-12 months into their employment what they really excel at, you have no chance in 30-60 minute (or whatever) interview.
The best you can hope for is to rule out the obvious sociopaths.
>The breadth and depth of their knowledge is secondary
That's what the parent comment is saying. Open-book instead of closed-book, just have the candidate walk you through figuring out what they don't know, listen to them think aloud, and evaluate that.
That's what the parent comment is saying. Open-book instead of closed-book, just have the candidate walk you through figuring out what they don't know, listen to them think aloud, and evaluate that.
Alternatively, spend two months and learn the skill they are going to test you on.
I hate jumping through hoops too, but have you seen other industries (LSAT, mcat, etc)?
If you've never done it before leetcode style problems are bound to teach you something useful to your work.
I hate jumping through hoops too, but have you seen other industries (LSAT, mcat, etc)?
If you've never done it before leetcode style problems are bound to teach you something useful to your work.
It's also possible the company is setting themselves up for ethics/regulatory issues by selecting for individuals willing to cheat. I guess this should be no surprise since the culture at Amazon already sucks.
Sadly selecting for individuals who cheat might help the company navigate ethics/regulatory issues. I have seen many instances of people treating regulation as an annoying roadblock to work around, not something worth honoring.
That's something this community celebrates. Look at how much Uber and AirBNB are touted as success stories when really they were illegal enterprises allowing individuals to violate the law (taxi licenses, rental laws) for profit.
It's very easy to convince yourself that some laws are not worth respecting. (Ever drive 56 in a 55 zone?)
Taxi laws are an instance of almost 100% public corruption, unnecessary bureaucracy, and regulatory capture, but at the same time they would have been almost impossible to dislodge except through widespread disobedience. What happened with Uber and Lyft was for the best. The market spoke.
Taxi laws are an instance of almost 100% public corruption, unnecessary bureaucracy, and regulatory capture, but at the same time they would have been almost impossible to dislodge except through widespread disobedience. What happened with Uber and Lyft was for the best. The market spoke.
> And, importantly, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if no cheating was allowed and a different person took the job, that they would on average be any better.
I think there is plenty of reason to think people who actually know the stuff instead of cheating would be better on average. It's a signal that they were smart enough and motivated enough to learn the material (basic algorithms/coding skills in this case)- both traits that would probably make them better on average at the job.
Being a good cheater is a useful skill that probably also helps people on average- but I doubt it's nearly as useful an indicator of future success as being good at the skills necessary to do well on interview questions (w/o cheating).
I think there is plenty of reason to think people who actually know the stuff instead of cheating would be better on average. It's a signal that they were smart enough and motivated enough to learn the material (basic algorithms/coding skills in this case)- both traits that would probably make them better on average at the job.
Being a good cheater is a useful skill that probably also helps people on average- but I doubt it's nearly as useful an indicator of future success as being good at the skills necessary to do well on interview questions (w/o cheating).
If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place? Presumably I'm hiring an expensive problem-solver with good judgment here, accumulation of past knowledge beyond some basic level of competence is useful, but secondary.
Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself. The best interview that I've encountered is the long interview. I hire you for four months as a co-op, see what you can do, and we go from there. Impractical in many/most settings, obviously.
Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself. The best interview that I've encountered is the long interview. I hire you for four months as a co-op, see what you can do, and we go from there. Impractical in many/most settings, obviously.
> If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place?
But this is usually not possible- it's contingent on other people having already solved and posted solutions online for some question worded nearly the same. Much of the knowledge behind interview questions applies to all sorts of programming problems where the solution won't be available to copy. A knowledgeable programmer would know quickly that some problem is best approached by dfs or bfs, while the cheater may not.
> Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself
I agree, but this will always be a hard process. LC problems are like IQ test or SATs, they work fairly well most of the time, but probably better to weed out the particularly weak candidates than determine how good people truly are.
But this is usually not possible- it's contingent on other people having already solved and posted solutions online for some question worded nearly the same. Much of the knowledge behind interview questions applies to all sorts of programming problems where the solution won't be available to copy. A knowledgeable programmer would know quickly that some problem is best approached by dfs or bfs, while the cheater may not.
> Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself
I agree, but this will always be a hard process. LC problems are like IQ test or SATs, they work fairly well most of the time, but probably better to weed out the particularly weak candidates than determine how good people truly are.
This is like saying my contractor put in a low quality roof, but it hasn’t collapsed yet.
The problem is while you can’t control randomness, on average those roofs do fail much more.
But more broadly it’s amazing how far developers on HN will go to defend things that will mildly inconvenience developers.
The problem is while you can’t control randomness, on average those roofs do fail much more.
But more broadly it’s amazing how far developers on HN will go to defend things that will mildly inconvenience developers.
No, it's not like that at all. It's like saying the roofer I hired doctored his references, but then proceeded to build a roof that's objectively good enough for me to hire him again to build another roof, on a bigger house for more money.
Cheating to bypass a stupid gatekeeping system that's designed to ration 1 job per N perfectly qualified applicants is only a problem if it's a problem. If you claim that people who didn't cheat during that process are any less likely to do something unethical when hired, I'd say that's a claim in need of proof.
My preferred solution is to come up with a less stupid gatekeeping system. But I only ever hire co-op students, and no one will let me try anything that involves more than a 30-minute chat. Works well enough, but it's a highly non-scientific, non-rational exercise.
Cheating to bypass a stupid gatekeeping system that's designed to ration 1 job per N perfectly qualified applicants is only a problem if it's a problem. If you claim that people who didn't cheat during that process are any less likely to do something unethical when hired, I'd say that's a claim in need of proof.
My preferred solution is to come up with a less stupid gatekeeping system. But I only ever hire co-op students, and no one will let me try anything that involves more than a 30-minute chat. Works well enough, but it's a highly non-scientific, non-rational exercise.
You're confusing an individual for the whole.
If an individual cheats but turns out to be competent, it's no loss for the company or anyone else, really. But on average, if cheating is common, more incompetent people will slip through and ultimately cause problems. I can bet my life savings on black and win, but that doesn't make it a good decision.
> Works well enough, but it's a highly non-scientific, non-rational exercise.
If you'd like to know about the research behind interviews, they've found that unstructured interviews aren't better than pulling people out of a hat, regardless of how effective they feel.
If an individual cheats but turns out to be competent, it's no loss for the company or anyone else, really. But on average, if cheating is common, more incompetent people will slip through and ultimately cause problems. I can bet my life savings on black and win, but that doesn't make it a good decision.
> Works well enough, but it's a highly non-scientific, non-rational exercise.
If you'd like to know about the research behind interviews, they've found that unstructured interviews aren't better than pulling people out of a hat, regardless of how effective they feel.
> They may not have found the very best person for the job (very subjective and unknowable anyway), but if the process didn't result in an under-performer taking the job, the process did not fail.
The process did not fail in the same way my bear repelling crystal necklace has not yet failed me in repelling bears.
The process did not fail in the same way my bear repelling crystal necklace has not yet failed me in repelling bears.
This comparison only works if you routinely walk through crowds (groups? congregations? clowders?) of bears. Preferably polar bears.
It works in any case where the thing you're trying to prevent probably just isn't there.
> However, the conclusion this person reaches - we must conduct these broken interviews in person so the cheaters can't cheat - is the wrong one.
It's not "right" or "wrong" - it's just a decision. There may be other choices and other decisions but to paint this one as flat wrong seems, well, wrong.
> They may not have found the very best person for the job
The vast majority of job searches do not have this as a goal!
Most companies want to hire somebody who's good enough relatively quickly for a price they want to pay.
It's not "right" or "wrong" - it's just a decision. There may be other choices and other decisions but to paint this one as flat wrong seems, well, wrong.
> They may not have found the very best person for the job
The vast majority of job searches do not have this as a goal!
Most companies want to hire somebody who's good enough relatively quickly for a price they want to pay.
Best person for the job given relevant constraints, obviously. When those are "relatively quickly" and "for the price we want to pay", you still want the very best person for the job.
> you still want the very best person for the job.
No you don't! Or else you'd never hire anybody because how can you be sure anyone is the best person for the job?
You want to hire the person in front of you who is good enough to be likely enough to be able to do the job.
No you don't! Or else you'd never hire anybody because how can you be sure anyone is the best person for the job?
You want to hire the person in front of you who is good enough to be likely enough to be able to do the job.
> They may not have found the very best person for the job (very subjective and unknowable anyway), but if the process didn't result in an under-performer taking the job, the process did not fail.
My process is that I hire only men. I have not yet had an underperformer. Hence, my process never failed.
At some level, fairness is important. And no, it's not important only when there is a law behind it.
My process is that I hire only men. I have not yet had an underperformer. Hence, my process never failed.
At some level, fairness is important. And no, it's not important only when there is a law behind it.
IOW, crime pays.
I grew up staunchly against cheating. Becoming an adult was hard. My whole university class cheated on a tough assignment - someone found the solution online and shared it around. I didn't look at it, took the challenge and gave it a lot of effort. I got a pretty bad mark and the rest of the class got top marks.
I also see the same mindset in work. People don't prepare for presentations and then spitball when presenting it. It's not "cheating" but it's skipping the effort and preparation in the same way.
I also see the same mindset in work. People don't prepare for presentations and then spitball when presenting it. It's not "cheating" but it's skipping the effort and preparation in the same way.
You can’t really cheat your way to a better presentation. If the “spitballed” version is good enough for the situation, why expend a lot of effort on preparation?
Maybe the problem is that people have low expectations when everyone delivers bad presentations. This kind of cultural thing is often easier to fix by changing the format rather than pushing for everyone to do more — in other words, ask “do we need all these presentations?” instead of “why do you all put so little effort in your presentations.”
Maybe the problem is that people have low expectations when everyone delivers bad presentations. This kind of cultural thing is often easier to fix by changing the format rather than pushing for everyone to do more — in other words, ask “do we need all these presentations?” instead of “why do you all put so little effort in your presentations.”
It probably isn't good enough. But it's hard for the audience to tell.
"Any questions?"
"How are we going to scale the data storage?"
"Oh, we're confident that the data will all fit in a single SQLite instance."
"Great."
It's only six months later, when it turns out it won't, and there's a lot of stress and panicked re-working, that the lack of preparation will be obvious. And by then, everyone will have forgotten the presentation.
"Any questions?"
"How are we going to scale the data storage?"
"Oh, we're confident that the data will all fit in a single SQLite instance."
"Great."
It's only six months later, when it turns out it won't, and there's a lot of stress and panicked re-working, that the lack of preparation will be obvious. And by then, everyone will have forgotten the presentation.
This is less spitballed presentation and more spitballed design. The latter is much much much worse.
[deleted]
If all you need to answer that question is "we're confident that X" then that's still a problem with the asker. Why are they confident? Have we modeled the data needs over time? What data are we even storing? Basic probing questions should either uncover the lack of preparation or show that things will indeed be fine.
Just like cheating is a problem for a teacher to solve, a lack of preparation is a problem for the audience to solve.
Just like cheating is a problem for a teacher to solve, a lack of preparation is a problem for the audience to solve.
This is only true in a low-trust society. In a high-trust society, it's absolutely on the presenter to make their claims not only true, but realistically true, and acceptable by the average person. When people defect from that norm, they are shamed, or worse.
Aren't we talking about an environment where there are rampant cheaters? My perception was that this is by definition a low-trust company. Of course, it is always going to be easier to remove yourself from that situation and go to a company that has more rigorous interviews that would catch cheating in the first place.
The corollary of your argument is that hiring rampant cheaters produces (by definition, as you say) a low-trust company. Putting aside everything else, low-trust organizations are intrinsically dysfunctional (though it may take a while for the consequences to play out.) In them, asking more questions will not get you useful information, and you had better watch your back.
See, for example, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Hoxha's Albania, the Taliban's Afghanistan...
See, for example, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, Hoxha's Albania, the Taliban's Afghanistan...
If the presentation misrepresents a projects state through vagueness I might call that cheating.
How is spitballing a presentation cheating? It's the equivalent of taking a test without studying, not presenting somebody else's work as your own.
It's a broken system where effort and performance isn't acknowledged and rewarded and the whole purpose of being there is undermined. At some point the whole enterprise is destructive and should be shut down.
When has "having been there" ever been a measure for reward? In college no one gave a shit if you came to lectures, all that mattered was the exam at the end of the semester. If you learn better with books: great!
I'm suprised that so many companies are unable to measure the performance of their employees in an effective manner. This entire discussion comes down to whether management actually wants to own the product and subsequently the product development lifecycle and is then also willing to investigate potential friction, or, as is much more often the case, doesn't really care and just wants to be told what they want to hear.
You prioritize a metric (keep management happy) over actualy results. If I can improve that metric by improvising, how am I a cheater?
I'm suprised that so many companies are unable to measure the performance of their employees in an effective manner. This entire discussion comes down to whether management actually wants to own the product and subsequently the product development lifecycle and is then also willing to investigate potential friction, or, as is much more often the case, doesn't really care and just wants to be told what they want to hear.
You prioritize a metric (keep management happy) over actualy results. If I can improve that metric by improvising, how am I a cheater?
If the outcome is successful with less effort how is that bad? I was just in a joint presentation with a new grad. We both had our parts. They spent hours preparing their parts of a technical demonstration. I just walked through my part of the demo and had an “open discussion”.
They put 4x more effort to achieve what I would say was a 20% better result. That’s not meant to be an insult to them, I have much more experience.
They put 4x more effort to achieve what I would say was a 20% better result. That’s not meant to be an insult to them, I have much more experience.
>It's a broken system where effort and performance isn't acknowledged and rewarded and the whole purpose of being there is undermined. At some point the whole enterprise is destructive and should be shut down.
The point of presentation is usably not to put up great presentation, but to get certain points across.
If you successfully do that with quickly thrown presentation, then its waste of time spending more on it.
The point of presentation is usably not to put up great presentation, but to get certain points across.
If you successfully do that with quickly thrown presentation, then its waste of time spending more on it.
[deleted]
if the end result is the same who cares
I'm sorry, but I disagree with the analogy. If you can spitball the presentation, your time is likely spent better elsewhere than preparing for the presentation.
[deleted]
I’m curious how far you are into your career. It sounds a bit like you are treating presentations as a performance, which is natural to fall into but I think it is a bit of a trap time investment wise. If you practice improvising presentations you will eventually get good at improvising presentations which is a valuable skill to have IMO.
What does spitball mean? I don’t prepare for presentations but I can’t tell how that would be cheating.
It means to extemporize / ramble.
But that’s not cheating on presenting, that’s just doing a bad job, no? That is, just visible incompetence?
It leads to the modern world where "influencers" and "fake news" succeed while creators and contributors fail. It's hard to see this being the basis of a sustainable society.
I don’t agree that those things are at all related to not preparing for work presentations
If you are a creator that can’t get your ideas across, you’re just like the literally dozen of people who have approached me with a “great idea” with no go to market strategy.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"
- No country for old men
- No country for old men
> I didn't look at it, took the challenge and gave it a lot of effort. I got a pretty bad mark and the rest of the class got top marks.
I am curious to know what conclusion you draw from the anecdote about the test?
Is it that you aren't good enough because you tried your best and failed?
Or is it that the test is a fallible instrument, designed by a human being who works within the constraints of an institution and has no choice but to treat education as if it is a magic juice that it's his job to squirt into the students heads and then administer tests to determine if the juice stuck there or leaked out, thereby identifying the defective and leaky craniums?
Or is it that you seemed out of touch with what every else intuitively understood? ie. That they're being evaluated and that a negative evaluation can have profound consequences for the rest of their life, regardless of if the testing procedure is fair or not?
I am curious to know what conclusion you draw from the anecdote about the test?
Is it that you aren't good enough because you tried your best and failed?
Or is it that the test is a fallible instrument, designed by a human being who works within the constraints of an institution and has no choice but to treat education as if it is a magic juice that it's his job to squirt into the students heads and then administer tests to determine if the juice stuck there or leaked out, thereby identifying the defective and leaky craniums?
Or is it that you seemed out of touch with what every else intuitively understood? ie. That they're being evaluated and that a negative evaluation can have profound consequences for the rest of their life, regardless of if the testing procedure is fair or not?
It was a pretty tough assignment iirc. In my mind an assignments purpose is to learn - which I did from putting in the effort and then reviewing the solution after submitting.
You seem to be getting my point though - I would have rather failed than cheat.
I learned that people (even smart people - which my peers were) will cheat if its beneficial to them.
You seem to be getting my point though - I would have rather failed than cheat.
I learned that people (even smart people - which my peers were) will cheat if its beneficial to them.
Ironic then that the real test was to see who has flexible thinking to adjust to a dynamic situation and who mindlessly follows misconstrued advice.
If you really wanted to challenge yourself there's nothing stopping you from doing extra excerises outside of class. Yes, your other classmates were wrong for cheating, but you're paying the university and they can't even be bothered to update the their tests because they don't care about the cheating or you getting an education either.
There's any number of situtations like this that happen in real life, from school, government, politics, work, etc. Not understanding these rules is much worse than being able to do some assignment in university.
If you really wanted to challenge yourself there's nothing stopping you from doing extra excerises outside of class. Yes, your other classmates were wrong for cheating, but you're paying the university and they can't even be bothered to update the their tests because they don't care about the cheating or you getting an education either.
There's any number of situtations like this that happen in real life, from school, government, politics, work, etc. Not understanding these rules is much worse than being able to do some assignment in university.
Yeah, it's sadly predictable that OP is seeing this play out in the workplace. People who cheat to get hired are also likely to scheme and manipulate their way up the corporate ladder. This happens at almost every company, every day.
Interestingly it doesn't have to be this way. This is mostly due to the fact that nearly all companies use a command-and-control management structure where people are promoted by the people above them. Stealing credit from your co-workers and/or convincing your manager that you're going to support them is a surefire way to climb the ladder.
The solution is simple: promote from below.
Basically, teams should be lead by people they have democratically chosen, and that process should continue all the way to the top. I've always found it curious that most of the world recognizes democracy as the most effective way to structure a government, but the corporate world is obsessed with dictatorial command-and-control structure - with predictable results.
Disclaimer: I am the co-founder of a co-op dev studio that was based on 18th century pirate charters (https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate-code-1...).
Interestingly it doesn't have to be this way. This is mostly due to the fact that nearly all companies use a command-and-control management structure where people are promoted by the people above them. Stealing credit from your co-workers and/or convincing your manager that you're going to support them is a surefire way to climb the ladder.
The solution is simple: promote from below.
Basically, teams should be lead by people they have democratically chosen, and that process should continue all the way to the top. I've always found it curious that most of the world recognizes democracy as the most effective way to structure a government, but the corporate world is obsessed with dictatorial command-and-control structure - with predictable results.
Disclaimer: I am the co-founder of a co-op dev studio that was based on 18th century pirate charters (https://www.fountstudio.com/blog/yes-we-have-a-pirate-code-1...).
Dahl wrote about this (which you might already know): https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520058774/a-preface-to-econ...
While it's unlikely these test results were deliberately leaked as a 'real-world' learning exercise, the principle definitely applies.
I had a friend in college friend who was in a Government major program, which was notorious for handing out insanely large reading lists for each class, like literally a ~meter tall stack of books for a term. Being the highly conscientious person she was, she spent the first three years trying to get through it all. She was blown away her senior year when she found out that the professors did NOT expect every book to be read! The professors had worked at the highest levels of govt (including Cabinet level), and knew that the volume of available references in the real role was enormous, and that a key skill was being able to efficiently whittle them down to a usable level without reading every page. So, they were literally recreating the situation for their students. Her senior year went a lot better after learning that...
I had a friend in college friend who was in a Government major program, which was notorious for handing out insanely large reading lists for each class, like literally a ~meter tall stack of books for a term. Being the highly conscientious person she was, she spent the first three years trying to get through it all. She was blown away her senior year when she found out that the professors did NOT expect every book to be read! The professors had worked at the highest levels of govt (including Cabinet level), and knew that the volume of available references in the real role was enormous, and that a key skill was being able to efficiently whittle them down to a usable level without reading every page. So, they were literally recreating the situation for their students. Her senior year went a lot better after learning that...
Why didn't they told them so, what a shitty professors
Good question, bad assessment.
I'm pretty sure it was because it is actually the same situation in the real world — you're EXPECTED to have full command of all that information, yet need to filter it down in real time. If you are told to just skim forever, you don't ever face the real-world problem, and fail when you get there.
EDIT typo
I'm pretty sure it was because it is actually the same situation in the real world — you're EXPECTED to have full command of all that information, yet need to filter it down in real time. If you are told to just skim forever, you don't ever face the real-world problem, and fail when you get there.
EDIT typo
So rather than try to improve the situation by teaching them techniques for doing this winnowing and skimming, which would a) reduce the stress on their students (both in the class and in the real world), and b) increase the efficiency and productivity of the students once they were out there working, they instead chose to perpetuate the significantly more negative status quo.
That sounds like bad professors to me.
That sounds like bad professors to me.
When the rules of civilization change to the rules of the jungle, society collapses. Many societies have collapsed, even in modern times. It's not fun.
So when was the golden age of “society” where it was morally better?
When you import people from the jungle, you eventually become the jungle.
Cheating is a slippery slope.
This is the one thing that I always remind myself and my people, whenever the temptation arises.
If my cheating works, I could never stop myself from doing it again, bigger, causing much worse damage to me and people around me when I get caught.
If my cheating fails, I've lost more than what I could have gained anyway.
To me its a lose-lose. I'd rather get up and leave, or find another way than cheat.
And I hold that standard for people around me too. If I know they've cheated, even when I'm not involved or affected, that person or group and I are done.
Its a hard non-negotiable thing. And I think I'm better for it.
This is the one thing that I always remind myself and my people, whenever the temptation arises.
If my cheating works, I could never stop myself from doing it again, bigger, causing much worse damage to me and people around me when I get caught.
If my cheating fails, I've lost more than what I could have gained anyway.
To me its a lose-lose. I'd rather get up and leave, or find another way than cheat.
And I hold that standard for people around me too. If I know they've cheated, even when I'm not involved or affected, that person or group and I are done.
Its a hard non-negotiable thing. And I think I'm better for it.
This is two totally different things. Not preparing for a presentation means you deliver a mediocre-to-bad presentation; you can't cheat by looking up the answer somewhere.
So if delivering a lousy presentation is good enough for whoever wanted the presentation, why go to the effort of making a great presentation? Are the rewards for that effort worth the expenditure? Probably not, which is why people are "spitballing" it.
So if delivering a lousy presentation is good enough for whoever wanted the presentation, why go to the effort of making a great presentation? Are the rewards for that effort worth the expenditure? Probably not, which is why people are "spitballing" it.
What is the reward for putting in the presentation effort? If I get my salary if I spitball and I get my salary whether I put in effort, why bother?
I don't bother prepare for client support calls, mostly because I don't want to do them and want to be considered incompetent at them so I am not asked to help in the future as much. So at least for me, presentations are nothing but more work.
I don't bother prepare for client support calls, mostly because I don't want to do them and want to be considered incompetent at them so I am not asked to help in the future as much. So at least for me, presentations are nothing but more work.
[deleted]
Reading some of the comments in this thread I'm surprised. It seems that a substantial number of people think one of the following: a.) cheating on interviews is ok, because interviews don't reflect the actual job b.) this is acceptable because the promotion process is distinct from the interview process or c.) that the cheaters clearly are skilled after all because of all their success, as evidenced by being promoted, so it's ok.
I think that's more or less how I would summarize the sympathetic comments in here, but if I missed something or if I'm being unfair then let me know.
I for one think this kind of stuff is pretty shameful, and I don't see how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that. The scariest thing for me is how all that's really changed since university, which was full of cheaters, is how much easier it's become, and I don't just mean in engineering. I mean in every facet of life we're basically awash in never before seen capacity to benefit from dishonesty.
I guess the silver lining is there will probably be incredible opportunity down the road to combat this, but nonetheless it's a little sad that it isn't inherent to the discipline of technology itself anymore. Like, there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA, but Computer Science and Engineering were considered too hard to really be worth the effort. Obviously I don't mean to say that there were zero grifters, but on the whole the only people who pursued these disciplines were true, dyed in the wool nerds who simply thought making stuff was cool.
As a passing thought I've noticed that there's also sort of like a fierce loyalty to defending LLM's in the forums, often by people who display a certain amount of ignorance as to how they work. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic there as to the people who are justifying the cheaters in the comments?
I think that's more or less how I would summarize the sympathetic comments in here, but if I missed something or if I'm being unfair then let me know.
I for one think this kind of stuff is pretty shameful, and I don't see how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that. The scariest thing for me is how all that's really changed since university, which was full of cheaters, is how much easier it's become, and I don't just mean in engineering. I mean in every facet of life we're basically awash in never before seen capacity to benefit from dishonesty.
I guess the silver lining is there will probably be incredible opportunity down the road to combat this, but nonetheless it's a little sad that it isn't inherent to the discipline of technology itself anymore. Like, there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA, but Computer Science and Engineering were considered too hard to really be worth the effort. Obviously I don't mean to say that there were zero grifters, but on the whole the only people who pursued these disciplines were true, dyed in the wool nerds who simply thought making stuff was cool.
As a passing thought I've noticed that there's also sort of like a fierce loyalty to defending LLM's in the forums, often by people who display a certain amount of ignorance as to how they work. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic there as to the people who are justifying the cheaters in the comments?
>Like, there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA
One nuance that may help explain how the change happened is how the status of CS has changed in the last 20 years. Maybe its just my age bias, but there seems to be a perceptible change of how CS majors are viewed by society and that changes the type of people attracted to that curriculum.
It used to be that CS and engineering majors were the nerds who, as you say, "simply thought making stuff was cool." Nowadays, though, as CS commands a disproportionately large salary, it has higher status. This tends to attract more people who are in it the reasons of status and money, rather than for a fascination with the work. Anecdotally, when I ask people why they got into CS a surprising number now say something along the lines of "because it pays well."
It's my opinion that change in perspective can bias how one views cheating. If the curriculum is just a means to an end (i.e., if school is just a means to a degree, which is just a gateway to a job/paycheck), it seems to make cheating more palatable.
One nuance that may help explain how the change happened is how the status of CS has changed in the last 20 years. Maybe its just my age bias, but there seems to be a perceptible change of how CS majors are viewed by society and that changes the type of people attracted to that curriculum.
It used to be that CS and engineering majors were the nerds who, as you say, "simply thought making stuff was cool." Nowadays, though, as CS commands a disproportionately large salary, it has higher status. This tends to attract more people who are in it the reasons of status and money, rather than for a fascination with the work. Anecdotally, when I ask people why they got into CS a surprising number now say something along the lines of "because it pays well."
It's my opinion that change in perspective can bias how one views cheating. If the curriculum is just a means to an end (i.e., if school is just a means to a degree, which is just a gateway to a job/paycheck), it seems to make cheating more palatable.
I think computing in the 1980s was a very different enterprise than it is today. Back then it was about exploring a new world whose horizons were expanding fast, as processor speed and O/S capability grew seemingly without bound. IMHO it was the transition of the cutting edge away from technical to social after the web arose that changed the tenor of computing. Devices became secondary to connected apps, and the focus among the players shifted from love of innovative hacks to fascination for megabuck payouts, meanwhile 'coolness' described _using_ computers rather than making them dance.
Despite how it often feels, "20 years ago" wasn't the 1980s.
> Anecdotally, when I ask people why they got into CS a surprising number now say something along the lines of "because it pays well."
Yeah, I've noticed that too. It's utterly depressing.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. It's utterly depressing.
I don't know the history of the bar exam, but I could imagine something like that one day being instituted to protect our repetitional interest.
Even though we're both talking about SWE, whereas CS is a different thing altogether.
Even though we're both talking about SWE, whereas CS is a different thing altogether.
NCEES has tried to create a Professional Engineer license related to CS. It died out from a lack of interest.
If you want people to take on jobs purely for non-socioeconomic reasons then you might need to fix the underlying socioeconomic problems. (e.g. cost of housing)
I don't see any real movement from older generations to do anything about that. They just keep complaining about the youth chasing money instead of some "passion." (Which ignores that the material conditions have completely changed in the last 20 years)
I don't see any real movement from older generations to do anything about that. They just keep complaining about the youth chasing money instead of some "passion." (Which ignores that the material conditions have completely changed in the last 20 years)
I don’t think this dichotomous thinking accurately captures the nuance and may just show a personal (and understandable) axe to grind. It’s definitely not an either-or choice.
Somebody can still quite easily work in CS and find affordable and high quality living. But maybe not in SV. I’d even argue you can work on more interesting problems. But people overwhelmingly want to work in SV because of the status it confers.
Somebody can still quite easily work in CS and find affordable and high quality living. But maybe not in SV. I’d even argue you can work on more interesting problems. But people overwhelmingly want to work in SV because of the status it confers.
I think the shift we have seen is from high status/upper classes suddenly taking an interest in CS.
Not lower class people moving into middle class.
Not lower class people moving into middle class.
I relate heavily to the spirit of your comments. Wouldn't we all be better off if we lived in a society that is built on trust and honesty.
However, I think you're being a little naive if you think the days of "yesteryear" were somehow different in man's capacity and willingness to do what he needs to do to survive.
The reality is that humans have not fundamentally changed in hundreds of thousands of years. If we're doing it today, you can bet we were doing it yesterday and that we'll be doing it tomorrow.
However, I think you're being a little naive if you think the days of "yesteryear" were somehow different in man's capacity and willingness to do what he needs to do to survive.
I mean in every facet of life we're basically awash in never before seen capacity to benefit from dishonesty.
it isn't inherent to the discipline of technology itself anymore.
Like, there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA
The reality is that humans have not fundamentally changed in hundreds of thousands of years. If we're doing it today, you can bet we were doing it yesterday and that we'll be doing it tomorrow.
You can always throw the argument “it has always been like that” to any discussion, but that’s never going to be a meaningful response to anyone who cares to think critically about whether the status quo is how things should be.
I'm saying that's how things have been, are, and will continue to be.
Any policy, technology, process, etc must take that into account.
I definitely wish that's not how it was, and I don't think that's how it should be, but we have to work with what we have to work with.
There are plenty of ways to get people to rise to their best selves, rather than sink to their worst selves, as they are in this context while competing for high paying jobs, and we should always try to induce the best outcomes possible.
I think this what you're getting at by suggesting we don't just give up, despite knowing what we know about human nature. But we also shouldn't deny the hard truth that humans won't anyways behave the way we wish they did.
Any policy, technology, process, etc must take that into account.
I definitely wish that's not how it was, and I don't think that's how it should be, but we have to work with what we have to work with.
There are plenty of ways to get people to rise to their best selves, rather than sink to their worst selves, as they are in this context while competing for high paying jobs, and we should always try to induce the best outcomes possible.
I think this what you're getting at by suggesting we don't just give up, despite knowing what we know about human nature. But we also shouldn't deny the hard truth that humans won't anyways behave the way we wish they did.
>what he needs to do to survive
Robbing a loaf of bread so your children can eat is very different from cheating on a test/interview for a job with a kingly salary. One is doing what one needs to do to survive, and morally justifiable. The other is pathetic and craven.
Robbing a loaf of bread so your children can eat is very different from cheating on a test/interview for a job with a kingly salary. One is doing what one needs to do to survive, and morally justifiable. The other is pathetic and craven.
Sure; but which is which will vary from person to person.
Yes, I am aware that sociopaths exist.
Not really any different. Nobody was hurt in the latter case.
> Nobody was hurt in the latter case.
Except the honest competitor who was passed over for the position, or the promotion?
Except the honest competitor who was passed over for the position, or the promotion?
I find it amusing that you are using a throwaway account for comments on this topic. It's as good as an admission that you know the behavior is wrong.
Two fundamental truths:
- nature is inherently competitive. - civilization and culture temper this but requires vigilance to maintain.
The second implies that some cultures may be more effective at tempering nature’s excesses than others… and also that it can change in a way in which it becomes less or more effective, or at least effective for different things…
- nature is inherently competitive. - civilization and culture temper this but requires vigilance to maintain.
The second implies that some cultures may be more effective at tempering nature’s excesses than others… and also that it can change in a way in which it becomes less or more effective, or at least effective for different things…
>vigilance to maintain.
I think this part is a crucial part, that many comments here miss. Honesty is not useful if it's not rewarded, consequently if cheating can be rewarding, because of non-vigilance. We see this not only among humans but also in animals/birds, and in general nature.
I think this part is a crucial part, that many comments here miss. Honesty is not useful if it's not rewarded, consequently if cheating can be rewarding, because of non-vigilance. We see this not only among humans but also in animals/birds, and in general nature.
Yeah, you're definitely right about that. I wasn't there for the golden era, which I imagine to be something like Jobs and Woz phreaking on the phones and ripping of Xerox as sort of the "noble" form of evil.
It's hard to speak quantitatively about qualitative things, but that' something that enters the discussion as soon as words like "more" or "less" are uttered.
In any case, you're absolutely correct that I'm definitely naive because I'm limited to just my lifetime.
It's hard to speak quantitatively about qualitative things, but that' something that enters the discussion as soon as words like "more" or "less" are uttered.
In any case, you're absolutely correct that I'm definitely naive because I'm limited to just my lifetime.
You mean the same era where Jobs cheated Woz out of his fair compensation and took credit for the Breakout game?
Putting a permanent dent into their friendship.
And then Bill Gates ripped off Xerox and beat Apple to the punch on desktop GUIs ;p
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmMqMYgswsA&t=609s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmMqMYgswsA&t=609s
[deleted]
I would say the pro-cheating attitude is pretty widespread among young adults tracking into white collar careers, and computer science is no different. It usually starts in school - and these interview quizzes track this behavior pretty closely. Even without the cheating, you can pass an interview "honestly" by putting in the time to cram for it. That does not justify cheating in any way, though.
The fact that people can just cheat in these interviews and not get PIP'd within 6 months, at an organization notorious for PIPing its under-performers, does illustrate how bad the screening process it. Not only do they need to shift back to in-person interviews, they also need to fix their process to actually test skills.
The fact that people can just cheat in these interviews and not get PIP'd within 6 months, at an organization notorious for PIPing its under-performers, does illustrate how bad the screening process it. Not only do they need to shift back to in-person interviews, they also need to fix their process to actually test skills.
> they also need to fix their process to actually test skills.
If we're being honest, LC style interviews aren't even about testing skills, it's trying to proxy for testing raw intelligence (or at least the ability to remember and regurgitate lots of facts). If companies could just IQ test people and hire by IQ, there'd be a lot less weirdness in interviews, but that's illegal (and probably rightly so).
If we're being honest, LC style interviews aren't even about testing skills, it's trying to proxy for testing raw intelligence (or at least the ability to remember and regurgitate lots of facts). If companies could just IQ test people and hire by IQ, there'd be a lot less weirdness in interviews, but that's illegal (and probably rightly so).
If a LC interview effectively serves as a proxy for an IQ test, then I think the courts might treat it the same as a literal IQ test. I wonder if we will see lawsuits testing this hypothesis.
The precedent for the illegality of IQ tests for employment is Griggs v Duke Power Co. [1] if I'm not mistaken. The court ruled:
> The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are > fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business > necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot > be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
(apologies for the dated and offensive language, starring it out seemed like it would imply a different and more offensive term so I left it as is)
My reading of it is that IQ tests aren't broadly illegal, but the employer would have to demonstrate that it's somehow related to job performance. E.g. one employer refused to hire people with too high of an IQ, and the courts ruled that was a reasonable (if unwise) justification [2].
I'm doubtful any case challenging LeetCode tests on the same grounds would succeed. I think it would be exceptionally difficult to convince a court that solving coding problems is unrelated to a programmer's job performance.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
2: https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
> The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are > fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business > necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot > be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.
(apologies for the dated and offensive language, starring it out seemed like it would imply a different and more offensive term so I left it as is)
My reading of it is that IQ tests aren't broadly illegal, but the employer would have to demonstrate that it's somehow related to job performance. E.g. one employer refused to hire people with too high of an IQ, and the courts ruled that was a reasonable (if unwise) justification [2].
I'm doubtful any case challenging LeetCode tests on the same grounds would succeed. I think it would be exceptionally difficult to convince a court that solving coding problems is unrelated to a programmer's job performance.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
2: https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
If they can proven to be so. What employees do is then build a proxy for IQ tests that has some job related stuff. Math or logic puzzles could be used if they relate to CS topics. It's not just "find the next element in the pattern" but "find the next sorted item in a list" and so on. They could argue that "Well the employee could in principle be inverting binary trees all day at their job..."
I bet many involved in designing and setting the requirements know exactly how it works but they'd use veiled language and never put anything down in written communication.
I bet many involved in designing and setting the requirements know exactly how it works but they'd use veiled language and never put anything down in written communication.
Good luck suing them
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
IQ is imperfect and has many issues that haven't been accounted for, nor should it be extended to represent all of intelligence, and many tests claiming to test IQ are completely pseudoscience, if even that, but the general concept isn't pseudoscience. A standardized IQ test has correlation with a number of other indicators of intelligence. It isn't a prefect test and popular culture has greatly oversold its importance, but our society misusing the science, and even scientists historically misusing the science, isn't reason enough to call it pseudoscience.
IQ scores are highly correlated with actual success, undeniably so.
Maybe IQ doesn't exactly track "intelligence", or whatever that is, but it is certainly tracking something that is correlated to success.
Maybe IQ doesn't exactly track "intelligence", or whatever that is, but it is certainly tracking something that is correlated to success.
Sure, but is that causal? For example, maybe there's some other factor (like SES) that's driving both. And switching to IQ tests doesn't really solve the problem, as your avenues for cheating on that are identical to LC.
You could probably screen candidates based on the question "Did any of your parents go to college? And if so, did they study or work in a STEM field?" and be roughly as predictable.
(This is terrible and you shouldn't do this)
You could probably screen candidates based on the question "Did any of your parents go to college? And if so, did they study or work in a STEM field?" and be roughly as predictable.
(This is terrible and you shouldn't do this)
We know for a fact that it is IQ that is driving SES and not the other way around.
What evidence do you have for this claim? You are suggesting SES is a meritocracy around IQ.
identical twins reared together vs apart, their IQs correlate more with their twin's than with the SES of the adoptive family.
high quality studies have found that the additive heritability of IQ is somewhere around 0.8-0.9, that's just totally incompatible with parental SES as the primary upstream cause. it's simply not debatable. and it wasn't debatable ten or twenty or fifty years ago either; it is one of the most well-established facts in human quantitative genetics.
ironically one of the things having a high IQ is bad for is having accurate beliefs about IQ; ask anyone who didn't go to college and odds are they'll correctly tell you that smartness runs in families.
high quality studies have found that the additive heritability of IQ is somewhere around 0.8-0.9, that's just totally incompatible with parental SES as the primary upstream cause. it's simply not debatable. and it wasn't debatable ten or twenty or fifty years ago either; it is one of the most well-established facts in human quantitative genetics.
ironically one of the things having a high IQ is bad for is having accurate beliefs about IQ; ask anyone who didn't go to college and odds are they'll correctly tell you that smartness runs in families.
Yeah but hiring companies don’t care. Same as these interviews that they do have some correlation to success maybe no better than iq
…and I fully support cheating on IQ and LC tests. If you successfully cheat, that means the interviewing company failed the test.
I'd add d) when all of the gains are captured by execs and investors, if you don't do everything you can to maximize your return and minimize your input, you're being exploited.
It's strange to me that anyone would care about people cheating at job interviews and not say CEO pay that's 1,000X the average employee. More power to those who can balance things in their favor against those who have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
It's strange to me that anyone would care about people cheating at job interviews and not say CEO pay that's 1,000X the average employee. More power to those who can balance things in their favor against those who have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
It's interesting that you think the promotion of an engineer would have any effect on the CEOs pay. Someone was going to be promoted anyway, the CEO couldn't care less about who. The problem here is that it should have been supposedly someone else who actually earned it.
Is there any evidence, other than these people using unethical methods to get hired on initiall at companies, that they didn't earn the raises they received?
I don't have any evidence, but that's the premise of the article. Whether it is evidence based or not was not the topic of my comment.
But to answer your question subjectively, yes, in my experience cheaters will cheat. If they used unethical methods to get hired that's a strong indicator that they will also cheat their way to raises and promotions.
But to answer your question subjectively, yes, in my experience cheaters will cheat. If they used unethical methods to get hired that's a strong indicator that they will also cheat their way to raises and promotions.
I’m saying that it’s pointless to get upset at someone getting a raise when the person in charge makes orders of magnitude the amount of money you do. That is the problem, not labor doing what it can to eke out a microscopic amount of leverage.
That's whataboutism, though. Why should I focus on some other problem when we are talking about this problem now.
This isn’t a problem. That’s the point.
Cheaters getting ahead of honest people is of course a problem and I don't understand how you could possibly say it isn't. Those cheaters are taking away jobs and promotions from people who deserve it more.
If by the cheaters you mean the executives and investors who personally capture all of the profit, then I couldn't agree more. The reason that we're suffering from "inflation" and see record high wealth inequality is because the people at the top are hoarding all of the capital and profit leaving little for the vast majority of people.
Yes and that's bad but kevin over there cheating his way up the corporate ladder to be one of those execs is PART OF THAT PROBLEM
[deleted]
On a meta note, trying to engage with you seriously is annoying because every single one of your comments is whataboutism.
[deleted]
It’s not about impacting the CEO’s pay, it’s about exceeding maximum value from a job that is exploiting you in order for them to get that pay and benefit shareholders. Other than a few SMEs run by genuinely good people, capitalism puts us in adversarial position because if we don’t take one we’ll be hugely taken advantage of.
I think more people are waking up to the fact that the corporate ladder is a joke. Hence all the whining about WFH, quiet quitting, and GenZ not being subservient enough.
It's not true that all of the gains are captured by investors.
Alphabet's CEO makes about 1000x the average googler, but that's only about 1% of salaries. What I mean is that for every $100 a Googler makes, about $1 goes to the CEO. It's not like top executives are claiming ing most of the value for themselves, the majority of the value a worker generates is returned to them in their compensation.
Alphabet's CEO makes about 1000x the average googler, but that's only about 1% of salaries. What I mean is that for every $100 a Googler makes, about $1 goes to the CEO. It's not like top executives are claiming ing most of the value for themselves, the majority of the value a worker generates is returned to them in their compensation.
There are reasons beyond direct redistribution of the CEO's salary to take issue with the vast inequality represented by that 1,000X. The board and CEO will place all of their network in the executive ranks, cutting off access to rank and file employees. These people also use their out-sized reward to have a huge impact on society at large outside of the company. The negative externalities created by exec compensation are borne by the public.
> It's strange to me that anyone would care about people cheating at job interviews and not say CEO pay that's 1,000X the average employee.
When people cheat at the job interview and end up on my team or interacting with me but are not competent at the job, that directly and negatively impacts me and my work life, as well as my productivity. The fact the CEO makes more money than me does not directly impact me (although it does indirectly through larger society).
I like being part of a team that is high performance and competent and linked to other high performance and competent teams. Cheating makes this less likely and damages the quality of the work life and creates the need for more process that slows does the productivity and performance of the team in order to account for and hedge against incompetence.
When people cheat at the job interview and end up on my team or interacting with me but are not competent at the job, that directly and negatively impacts me and my work life, as well as my productivity. The fact the CEO makes more money than me does not directly impact me (although it does indirectly through larger society).
I like being part of a team that is high performance and competent and linked to other high performance and competent teams. Cheating makes this less likely and damages the quality of the work life and creates the need for more process that slows does the productivity and performance of the team in order to account for and hedge against incompetence.
I've never seen "productivity" tied to compensation. Those with connections and the ability to self-promote receive the most pay. Those who don't understand this focus on being "productive" to help improve their boss' bottom line at their own expense.
If you like to excel, the best choice is to preserve your energy as much as possible while working for your employer and build something amazing that you own with the energy that otherwise would have been given to them.
If you like to excel, the best choice is to preserve your energy as much as possible while working for your employer and build something amazing that you own with the energy that otherwise would have been given to them.
>As a passing thought I've noticed that there's also sort of like a fierce loyalty to defending LLM's in the forums, often by people who display a certain amount of ignorance as to how they work. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic there as to the people who are justifying the cheaters in the comments?
No it's the other way around. Hinton, basically the father of "AI" and other real experts who are involved in the creation of LLMs are massively divided about the future. Hinton even says the AI actually understands you. The fact that there's division among the real experts (ie not you or me) shows theirs legitimacy in the defense.
There's a fierce artificial downplaying of AI when it comes to programming. A lot of people say that it's not remotely close to replacing programmers. I think this is the delusional group. It's not replacing us yet, but it's obviously close and the trendline is unmistakable.
I think it occurs because a lot of people's identity rests on their actual ability to program. They think they're superior programmers and the fact that a machine is on track to trivialize the skills they take so much pride in causes them to dismiss the technology in the face of actual experts who fear and question it. There's bias on both extremes and one Hallmark of bias is when one fails to address the division and actual controversy.
You have failed to address the controversy instead you categorize people who "defend" AI as people who don't "understand" it and you imply it's some psychological quirk or bias people have. I agree somewhat, but clearly not all who "defend" AI are like this as their are preeminent experts who are on the "defence" side. Instead I think your behavior is an exhibition of other common psychological defensive quirks and biases.
I think you don't realize how it's a dog eat dog world out there and people will do anything to succeed. Maybe your born with talent, so you worship and defend that talent with calls to uphold "integrity." Others, however, will do anything in their power to stay afloat in the face of your "talent." It's more about survival for humans then it is about integrity. Do people really want to live a shitty life getting sub 100k salaries only letting people like you take up all the high paying jobs in the name of "integrity"? No. No one does... not even you, but you have the luxury of talent or ability to master those interviews... that is the only differentiator.
I bet if you couldn't pass those interviews you would be in the same boat. You defend integrity not because you are a stand up person, but because you have the ability to succeed without violating your integrity. That's all.
One thing to note about people is often their truth strangely aligns with their circumstance in life. Why? Most people do not seek actual truth. Instead they construct the truth as a scaffold to support themselves and the weight of their sins. You are no different. I'm pretty sure you are quite good at the technical interview and That strange alignment with your philosophy on interview integrity is Not a coincidence.
Personally I'm unique in this regard. I'm good at interviewing but in my quest in seeking the objective truth of the world... I have, to my own detriment, constructed a life where my truth is not in alignment with what I am in actuality.
No it's the other way around. Hinton, basically the father of "AI" and other real experts who are involved in the creation of LLMs are massively divided about the future. Hinton even says the AI actually understands you. The fact that there's division among the real experts (ie not you or me) shows theirs legitimacy in the defense.
There's a fierce artificial downplaying of AI when it comes to programming. A lot of people say that it's not remotely close to replacing programmers. I think this is the delusional group. It's not replacing us yet, but it's obviously close and the trendline is unmistakable.
I think it occurs because a lot of people's identity rests on their actual ability to program. They think they're superior programmers and the fact that a machine is on track to trivialize the skills they take so much pride in causes them to dismiss the technology in the face of actual experts who fear and question it. There's bias on both extremes and one Hallmark of bias is when one fails to address the division and actual controversy.
You have failed to address the controversy instead you categorize people who "defend" AI as people who don't "understand" it and you imply it's some psychological quirk or bias people have. I agree somewhat, but clearly not all who "defend" AI are like this as their are preeminent experts who are on the "defence" side. Instead I think your behavior is an exhibition of other common psychological defensive quirks and biases.
I think you don't realize how it's a dog eat dog world out there and people will do anything to succeed. Maybe your born with talent, so you worship and defend that talent with calls to uphold "integrity." Others, however, will do anything in their power to stay afloat in the face of your "talent." It's more about survival for humans then it is about integrity. Do people really want to live a shitty life getting sub 100k salaries only letting people like you take up all the high paying jobs in the name of "integrity"? No. No one does... not even you, but you have the luxury of talent or ability to master those interviews... that is the only differentiator.
I bet if you couldn't pass those interviews you would be in the same boat. You defend integrity not because you are a stand up person, but because you have the ability to succeed without violating your integrity. That's all.
One thing to note about people is often their truth strangely aligns with their circumstance in life. Why? Most people do not seek actual truth. Instead they construct the truth as a scaffold to support themselves and the weight of their sins. You are no different. I'm pretty sure you are quite good at the technical interview and That strange alignment with your philosophy on interview integrity is Not a coincidence.
Personally I'm unique in this regard. I'm good at interviewing but in my quest in seeking the objective truth of the world... I have, to my own detriment, constructed a life where my truth is not in alignment with what I am in actuality.
There's a lot of great stuff in this comment.
> There's a fierce artificial downplaying of AI when it comes to programming. [...] I think this is the delusional group.
This could definitely be the case. I personally wouldn't bet against AI as in all of AI. I, like many, think it's a matter of time and technology, but I do think this particular moment in time, and this particular technology is over hyped. I'll just be candid about that. Still, one day? Yeah you bet, although it appears that we're at least one fundamental breakthrough short, so the technology will be different. Today's tech will still nonetheless be fundamental though.
> I think it occurs because a lot of people's identity rests on their actual ability to program. They think your they're superior programmers [...] causes them to dismiss the technology in the face of actual experts who fear and question it.
I can't speak to the first part, with respect to what one side's biases are, as I don't really know what they're thinking, but you're almost certainly right that there's bias on both the bear and bull cases for AI. Sometimes I think it's a simple as the "line goes up" thinking in crypto just for programming and that's all that people need. I just read a lot of comments that at times feel kind of desperate to defend LLMs and so I added that last part to my original comment to see if anyone felt like adding to that thought, which you have so thanks.
> You have failed to address the controversy instead you categorize people who "defend" AI as people who don't "understand" it and you imply it's some psychological quirk or bias people have
Well, in all fairness I didn't want to make my already very long comment any longer than it already was, however in my defense, with respect to defining the controversy vs. implying there's a psychological quirk - I have seen what you can call some very strange gymnastics around what is learning or what is intelligence in, again, sort of desperate efforts to make LLMs just something that they're not. It's in those situations that I was referring to the people clearly not understanding how they work. That being said, I also did imply there was a psychological quirk but that was just because I didn't have the space nor the ability to really articulate what else might be going there. I think in parts of your response though you conveyed a valid viewpoint.
> Maybe your born with talent, so you worship and defend that talent with calls to uphold "integrity."
First, thank you, but second I don't think this was the case. I am one of those people who actually thinks talent is usually overrated, as "good enough" + perseverance does at least the same job for less in most cases. If anything, I think talent is kind of a scapegoat whenever some great goal proves to be elusive.
> Do people really want to live a shitty life getting sub 100k salaries only letting people like you take up all the high paying jobs in the name of "integrity"? No. No one does... not even you, but you have the luxury of talent or ability to master those interviews.
I think I would just respond by saying that nobody is guaranteed something just because they want it, but all of those people have the same access as anyone else to leetcode and the internet or whatever else they need to do the work to pass the interview. Bearing that in mind, cheating is obviously understandable, but just because I understand it doesn't mean I would do it, personally. I definitely don't think that it's a good thing either, but I don't think I'm high and mighty about it either. Ultimately we all act the way that we do because we don't know any better. If I knew how to be smarter I would, but I don't so I'm kind of stuck where I'm at just like the rest of the world. I make mistakes and at times I can also be dishonest too. It's life. That said, it's not like I wholly embrace the moments in my life where my actions demonstrated my limitations, at least not when it became painfully obvious to me.
> You defend integrity not because you are a stand up person, but because you have the ability to succeed without violating your integrity
I appreciate your honesty about this and I don't think there's really anyway I can disagree with it. Maybe in another life, if I were in another person's shoes, I would act differently. I mean, that makes sense to me. I can't prove otherwise. That said, knowing what I know in this life, I stand by what I said.
The last thing I'll say is why I believe we should still make our best efforts to be good, at least within our ability. That is because living for the sake of accumulating power, at the cost of doing what you believe is right, is just not in one's own best interest. In the absence of understanding what is right and what is wrong, the power that we accumulate has the same opportunity to cause tremendous harm as it does joy.
Just think about why people always love really down to earth celebrities. We see them and think that despite all their money, power, and fame, they're happy and there's something comforting about that. Can the same really be said for the contrary? I know it's a silly argument because you kind have to keep an open mind to agree with me, but it's not as undeniable as 2+2=4. Still, that's what I truly believe and you don't know me or where I've been or what I've done. However, I wouldn't think this if I wasn't sincere about it. I have had my own mistakes and there have been times in my life, like anyone, where I've been immoral and I honestly came out the other end thinking the means didn't justify the ends. But it's up to you to believe me.
Anyways, apologies to everyone for the massive response. I wish I knew how to be more succinct in response.
> There's a fierce artificial downplaying of AI when it comes to programming. [...] I think this is the delusional group.
This could definitely be the case. I personally wouldn't bet against AI as in all of AI. I, like many, think it's a matter of time and technology, but I do think this particular moment in time, and this particular technology is over hyped. I'll just be candid about that. Still, one day? Yeah you bet, although it appears that we're at least one fundamental breakthrough short, so the technology will be different. Today's tech will still nonetheless be fundamental though.
> I think it occurs because a lot of people's identity rests on their actual ability to program. They think your they're superior programmers [...] causes them to dismiss the technology in the face of actual experts who fear and question it.
I can't speak to the first part, with respect to what one side's biases are, as I don't really know what they're thinking, but you're almost certainly right that there's bias on both the bear and bull cases for AI. Sometimes I think it's a simple as the "line goes up" thinking in crypto just for programming and that's all that people need. I just read a lot of comments that at times feel kind of desperate to defend LLMs and so I added that last part to my original comment to see if anyone felt like adding to that thought, which you have so thanks.
> You have failed to address the controversy instead you categorize people who "defend" AI as people who don't "understand" it and you imply it's some psychological quirk or bias people have
Well, in all fairness I didn't want to make my already very long comment any longer than it already was, however in my defense, with respect to defining the controversy vs. implying there's a psychological quirk - I have seen what you can call some very strange gymnastics around what is learning or what is intelligence in, again, sort of desperate efforts to make LLMs just something that they're not. It's in those situations that I was referring to the people clearly not understanding how they work. That being said, I also did imply there was a psychological quirk but that was just because I didn't have the space nor the ability to really articulate what else might be going there. I think in parts of your response though you conveyed a valid viewpoint.
> Maybe your born with talent, so you worship and defend that talent with calls to uphold "integrity."
First, thank you, but second I don't think this was the case. I am one of those people who actually thinks talent is usually overrated, as "good enough" + perseverance does at least the same job for less in most cases. If anything, I think talent is kind of a scapegoat whenever some great goal proves to be elusive.
> Do people really want to live a shitty life getting sub 100k salaries only letting people like you take up all the high paying jobs in the name of "integrity"? No. No one does... not even you, but you have the luxury of talent or ability to master those interviews.
I think I would just respond by saying that nobody is guaranteed something just because they want it, but all of those people have the same access as anyone else to leetcode and the internet or whatever else they need to do the work to pass the interview. Bearing that in mind, cheating is obviously understandable, but just because I understand it doesn't mean I would do it, personally. I definitely don't think that it's a good thing either, but I don't think I'm high and mighty about it either. Ultimately we all act the way that we do because we don't know any better. If I knew how to be smarter I would, but I don't so I'm kind of stuck where I'm at just like the rest of the world. I make mistakes and at times I can also be dishonest too. It's life. That said, it's not like I wholly embrace the moments in my life where my actions demonstrated my limitations, at least not when it became painfully obvious to me.
> You defend integrity not because you are a stand up person, but because you have the ability to succeed without violating your integrity
I appreciate your honesty about this and I don't think there's really anyway I can disagree with it. Maybe in another life, if I were in another person's shoes, I would act differently. I mean, that makes sense to me. I can't prove otherwise. That said, knowing what I know in this life, I stand by what I said.
The last thing I'll say is why I believe we should still make our best efforts to be good, at least within our ability. That is because living for the sake of accumulating power, at the cost of doing what you believe is right, is just not in one's own best interest. In the absence of understanding what is right and what is wrong, the power that we accumulate has the same opportunity to cause tremendous harm as it does joy.
Just think about why people always love really down to earth celebrities. We see them and think that despite all their money, power, and fame, they're happy and there's something comforting about that. Can the same really be said for the contrary? I know it's a silly argument because you kind have to keep an open mind to agree with me, but it's not as undeniable as 2+2=4. Still, that's what I truly believe and you don't know me or where I've been or what I've done. However, I wouldn't think this if I wasn't sincere about it. I have had my own mistakes and there have been times in my life, like anyone, where I've been immoral and I honestly came out the other end thinking the means didn't justify the ends. But it's up to you to believe me.
Anyways, apologies to everyone for the massive response. I wish I knew how to be more succinct in response.
Greed is not in our own best interest emotionally... but it is probably in our own best interest materially.
Nature doesn't require that we be happy, only that we procreate. Excess resources often make us feel comfortable enough to procreate, despite any unhappiness we may feel.
I think you've nailed a sad reality.
Nature doesn't require that we be happy, only that we procreate. Excess resources often make us feel comfortable enough to procreate, despite any unhappiness we may feel.
I think you've nailed a sad reality.
> I think you don't realize how it's a dog eat dog world out there and people will do anything to succeed.
The grifters and cheaters of our world are an opportunity cost. Who knows how much more productive or fair the world would be if we didn't tolerate them? By allowing them to succeed, we deny a world where they wouldn't need to exist.
The grifters and cheaters of our world are an opportunity cost. Who knows how much more productive or fair the world would be if we didn't tolerate them? By allowing them to succeed, we deny a world where they wouldn't need to exist.
Where would we be, if we didn't tolerate those that drag us down?
Careful, this kind of thinking leads to ideas which are unacceptable in the current world :)
Careful, this kind of thinking leads to ideas which are unacceptable in the current world :)
> Hinton even says the AI actually understands you. The fact that there's division among the real experts (ie not you or me) shows theirs legitimacy in the defense.
Exactly. Every time I push back on people who dismiss LLMs as not understanding, they but don't seem to realize how little we know about the brain and what "understanding" actually means, mechanistically. So even with perfect understanding of how LLMs function, that tells us nothing about whether they actually understand.
If defined operationally as being able to reliably and coherently converse about topics, make connections, solve problems and respond in novel or surprising ways, LLMs these days are at or slightly above the average human. Way above in some respects, but still below in others. It won't be long before their capabilities undeniably surpass the average.
Exactly. Every time I push back on people who dismiss LLMs as not understanding, they but don't seem to realize how little we know about the brain and what "understanding" actually means, mechanistically. So even with perfect understanding of how LLMs function, that tells us nothing about whether they actually understand.
If defined operationally as being able to reliably and coherently converse about topics, make connections, solve problems and respond in novel or surprising ways, LLMs these days are at or slightly above the average human. Way above in some respects, but still below in others. It won't be long before their capabilities undeniably surpass the average.
As companies grow, they have to have a promotion process. I've never encountered a company where that promotion process accurately assessed contribution to the business or technical competence. At best, the two are weakly correlated.
So, what happens when a company succeeds is that the competent people eventually either get tenured, or they get forced out by bozos (I'm using this as a term of art. Look up the bozo effect.) Eventually, the bozos win, and the company becomes unable to do anything other than extract monopoly rent. Then, some technology or regulatory shift arrives, and the incumbent gets forced out by a startup, or they somehow shed their bozos for a while.
So, if you are competent and honest, you have three choices:
- Learn how to be productive despite the promotion criteria. This is the path to tears and burn out, because most of your colleagues will only be good at gaming interviews / promotions, and your attention will be split between that and doing your job (and probably their jobs), placing you at a significant disadvantage.
- Somehow become the tenured engineer on top of this mess, and try to create pockets of competence in the organization. Ruthlessly detect + fire the bozos. This isn't fun either.
- Leave for a startup that's targeting a weak and foolish incumbent, and then leave when the startup grows up and becomes the weak and foolish incumbent (a good sign that this is happening is that the founding engineering team is leaving, or that your boss's boss is incompetent.)
Note that the last option is the lowest stress one for technically strong engineers. It is very hard to fake your way through knowing what you are doing when the entire company has direct visibility into your work.
If you can somehow solve the above problem then you can build a company larger than any of the FAANGs.
So, what happens when a company succeeds is that the competent people eventually either get tenured, or they get forced out by bozos (I'm using this as a term of art. Look up the bozo effect.) Eventually, the bozos win, and the company becomes unable to do anything other than extract monopoly rent. Then, some technology or regulatory shift arrives, and the incumbent gets forced out by a startup, or they somehow shed their bozos for a while.
So, if you are competent and honest, you have three choices:
- Learn how to be productive despite the promotion criteria. This is the path to tears and burn out, because most of your colleagues will only be good at gaming interviews / promotions, and your attention will be split between that and doing your job (and probably their jobs), placing you at a significant disadvantage.
- Somehow become the tenured engineer on top of this mess, and try to create pockets of competence in the organization. Ruthlessly detect + fire the bozos. This isn't fun either.
- Leave for a startup that's targeting a weak and foolish incumbent, and then leave when the startup grows up and becomes the weak and foolish incumbent (a good sign that this is happening is that the founding engineering team is leaving, or that your boss's boss is incompetent.)
Note that the last option is the lowest stress one for technically strong engineers. It is very hard to fake your way through knowing what you are doing when the entire company has direct visibility into your work.
If you can somehow solve the above problem then you can build a company larger than any of the FAANGs.
A resposne comment says:
> In business there is no cheating, there is only making money and not making money.
This attitude is very common among people I know. You ask "how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that." We muddle through, is the answer.
> In business there is no cheating, there is only making money and not making money.
This attitude is very common among people I know. You ask "how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that." We muddle through, is the answer.
> > In business there is no cheating, there is only making money and not making money.
This is the attitude that turns business from being something that is for the greater benefit of all into something that more like a cancer, harmful to all.
This is the attitude that turns business from being something that is for the greater benefit of all into something that more like a cancer, harmful to all.
scarface74(3)
It's the world we live in.
* Candidates now lie about experience. * promotions are given for loyalty, not contribution. * Companies cheat on hiring using false job descriptions and fake career carrots. * Your performance at work does not matter. Advance your career by interview prep, not excelling at your role. * Prestige (ex-FAANG, Ivy league degree) matter more than hard work.
I've noticed that tech companies are now filled with people who have zero interest in computer software. Management at tech companies is comprised of non-technical people.
* Candidates now lie about experience. * promotions are given for loyalty, not contribution. * Companies cheat on hiring using false job descriptions and fake career carrots. * Your performance at work does not matter. Advance your career by interview prep, not excelling at your role. * Prestige (ex-FAANG, Ivy league degree) matter more than hard work.
I've noticed that tech companies are now filled with people who have zero interest in computer software. Management at tech companies is comprised of non-technical people.
> Management at tech companies is comprised of non-technical people.
Sometimes there's good reasons for this
Sometimes there's good reasons for this
Sadly it seems tech hiring wants to optimize for cheating by putting a lot of importance on tests and credentials. Deemphasize these, and assess candidates more holistically, and cheating is no longer a factor. It’s easy to cheat on a test, or get a credential you don’t deserve, but these are amazingly treated as the solution rather than the cause of cheating.
It's the opposite. Credentials and testing are a substitute for trust since people will lie about experience and competence.
Credentials and test were seen as a way to remove interview bias from the process. So instead of cheaters you would end up with nothing but code bros
This is gonna be a weak comment because I can't find references, but whatever.
I remember listening to a podcast recently that compared boys and girls in school. The takeaway was that girls generally try to do all of the work, whereas boys were far more likely to take short cuts to success. And this was the reason why boys were doing better in university and afterwards. The conclusion of the podcast was that we should be encouraging girls to try to take the same shortcuts as boys. It's a learned skill to know exactly what needs to be done to get what you want.
Maybe that's what's going on here. Rules, whether we like it or not, can be broken.
I remember listening to a podcast recently that compared boys and girls in school. The takeaway was that girls generally try to do all of the work, whereas boys were far more likely to take short cuts to success. And this was the reason why boys were doing better in university and afterwards. The conclusion of the podcast was that we should be encouraging girls to try to take the same shortcuts as boys. It's a learned skill to know exactly what needs to be done to get what you want.
Maybe that's what's going on here. Rules, whether we like it or not, can be broken.
Shortcuts are great, until people get hurt or killed. That's why the phrase cutting corners is largely seen as negative, because it's associated with times when shortcuts caused harm.
Regardless of gender it's useful to teach people endurance, prioritization, and how to judge when it's best to do everything vs only some things.
Regardless of gender it's useful to teach people endurance, prioritization, and how to judge when it's best to do everything vs only some things.
So who is being harmed by someone not reversing a binary tree by memory for an interview?
Just out of curiosity: do you think there's nothing wrong with cheating on an interview, and if so would you do it?
When someone asks what your biggest weakness is during an interview, and you don't answer honestly because the honest answer to these sorts of questions are socially unacceptable and isn't what the interviewer is looking for to begin with, is that cheating? Or is it taking into account the context of the question and answering the question the interviewer wanted answer? I could see how both answers are justified, and as such it would need to be clarified to know what is meant by your question.
I just want to point out that this is an amazing comment. These gray areas are everywhere, and cognizance of them betrays intellectual rigor and honesty. I salute you good sir.
edit: I just realized there's a great irony here. I salute you, while recognizing that honesty and intellectual rigor is not valued in the world. I guess that's why it's valued so highly by people like me?
edit: I just realized there's a great irony here. I salute you, while recognizing that honesty and intellectual rigor is not valued in the world. I guess that's why it's valued so highly by people like me?
What if current interview process heavily favours fast thinkers, memorizers and crammers? Shouldn't slow thinkers figure out a way to beat the system?
From a practical standpoint, who is hurt? In my day to day job, I would have Google, StackOverflow, ChatGPT (as long as I didn’t paste proprietary code or business logic), prior code samples from my previous job[1], etc.
But this is theoretical, I haven’t had a coding interview in over a decade and then only once and not for the prior decade before that. Even though I’ve always been a hands on keyboard coder.
I can’t imagine subjecting myself to a coding interview at almost 50 years old with the types of jobs I would be looking for if I left my current job (enterprise/cloud architecture + leading application development/cloud )
All of my prior jobs have come from just talking to people in charge of hiring (usually director/CxOs) and using my network.
My current job in cloud consulting (cloud app dev/“DevOps”) at $BigTech was all behavioral even though I have developed in 4 languages in the last three years.
[1] Future me: my company has a very straightforward open source process where we can get approved to put our code on our open source GitHub organization with an MIT license as long as we write it from scratch and doesn’t have any customer identifying information or business processes.
But this is theoretical, I haven’t had a coding interview in over a decade and then only once and not for the prior decade before that. Even though I’ve always been a hands on keyboard coder.
I can’t imagine subjecting myself to a coding interview at almost 50 years old with the types of jobs I would be looking for if I left my current job (enterprise/cloud architecture + leading application development/cloud )
All of my prior jobs have come from just talking to people in charge of hiring (usually director/CxOs) and using my network.
My current job in cloud consulting (cloud app dev/“DevOps”) at $BigTech was all behavioral even though I have developed in 4 languages in the last three years.
[1] Future me: my company has a very straightforward open source process where we can get approved to put our code on our open source GitHub organization with an MIT license as long as we write it from scratch and doesn’t have any customer identifying information or business processes.
I actually don't really disagree at all with the "Rules can be broken" part, but I can't say I agree with the conclusion that the people in the podcast drew. I don't mean to say though that they're bad people though, but more like these are complex issues and I don't think their analysis was right in the end.
This is just my personal take, but I like the Plato way of thinking about this. If we were to invent an evil person who succeeds at everything, including being perceived as good by their peers, and also invent a good person who fails at everything and is unfairly or coincidentally perceived as evil by everyone, the "good person" still wins.
He argues that's because to be "good" requires to know separate it from bad, and that essentially knowing good from bad is what wisdom is. This, he argues, comes from having some kind of access to the truth, and the truth is the end-all-be-all. He believes that truth is more powerful, than power itself.
Finally, he argues that truth is more powerful than power because with power alone you only have the ability to achieve your aims but not the ability to know if they're good for you or bad for you. So finally he says this is why tyrants are always such sad people.
I don't know if we can fix a broken system in the sense that the wise people will always have the power, but I do find his argument persuasive and I know which of the two I prioritize. That's why when people act out in these ways, like cheating on interviews but also other things, I just accept it as you laid out earlier. Rules can be broken. It's not ideal, but it's fine.
This is just my personal take, but I like the Plato way of thinking about this. If we were to invent an evil person who succeeds at everything, including being perceived as good by their peers, and also invent a good person who fails at everything and is unfairly or coincidentally perceived as evil by everyone, the "good person" still wins.
He argues that's because to be "good" requires to know separate it from bad, and that essentially knowing good from bad is what wisdom is. This, he argues, comes from having some kind of access to the truth, and the truth is the end-all-be-all. He believes that truth is more powerful, than power itself.
Finally, he argues that truth is more powerful than power because with power alone you only have the ability to achieve your aims but not the ability to know if they're good for you or bad for you. So finally he says this is why tyrants are always such sad people.
I don't know if we can fix a broken system in the sense that the wise people will always have the power, but I do find his argument persuasive and I know which of the two I prioritize. That's why when people act out in these ways, like cheating on interviews but also other things, I just accept it as you laid out earlier. Rules can be broken. It's not ideal, but it's fine.
Look, I agree with your fundamental sentiment. But I think you're being incredibly naive too.
> I don't see how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that
My brother in Christ, the world barely functions as it is right now. We have a war going on because of one man's misguided attempt at recapturing his country's former glory as an empire, we've had planes fall out of the sky because of boneheaded engineering decisions demanded by MBA types (737 Max), we had a massive train derailment / chemical spill in Ohio caused by other MBA types not wanting to properly maintain the trains and tracks, we are maybe a few weeks away from the most economically powerful country on Earth defaulting because our moronic leadership can't agree to pay our debts (NOT because of an inherent inability to pay)... I could go on. The world is chaos, and it's pretty much always been that way.
> there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA, but Computer Science and Engineering were considered too hard to really be worth the effort.
This part of your reply really, really grinds my gears, because to me it's sort of saying that MBA's can cheat all they want, but CS and Engineering grads should be 'chaste' and not cheat... because reasons. NO. The MBA's took over the technical companies and fucked everything up, but we're just supposed to keep doing the 'right' thing? NO. Fuck them, we should get ours.
Is it sad that this is the current state of affairs? Absolutely. Would the world be an immensely better place if NO ONE was unethical, and no one cheated? Hell yes. But that world doesn't exist. And the people who have the power to bring such a world into existence are not entry level engineers.
> I don't see how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that
My brother in Christ, the world barely functions as it is right now. We have a war going on because of one man's misguided attempt at recapturing his country's former glory as an empire, we've had planes fall out of the sky because of boneheaded engineering decisions demanded by MBA types (737 Max), we had a massive train derailment / chemical spill in Ohio caused by other MBA types not wanting to properly maintain the trains and tracks, we are maybe a few weeks away from the most economically powerful country on Earth defaulting because our moronic leadership can't agree to pay our debts (NOT because of an inherent inability to pay)... I could go on. The world is chaos, and it's pretty much always been that way.
> there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA, but Computer Science and Engineering were considered too hard to really be worth the effort.
This part of your reply really, really grinds my gears, because to me it's sort of saying that MBA's can cheat all they want, but CS and Engineering grads should be 'chaste' and not cheat... because reasons. NO. The MBA's took over the technical companies and fucked everything up, but we're just supposed to keep doing the 'right' thing? NO. Fuck them, we should get ours.
Is it sad that this is the current state of affairs? Absolutely. Would the world be an immensely better place if NO ONE was unethical, and no one cheated? Hell yes. But that world doesn't exist. And the people who have the power to bring such a world into existence are not entry level engineers.
> The MBA's took over the technical companies and fucked everything up, but we're just supposed to keep doing the 'right' thing? NO. Fuck them, we should get ours.
Yes. That's what Christ teaches. We live in an unjust world and we make it better by holding our moral ground despite the enormous pressures to sell out.
Yes. That's what Christ teaches. We live in an unjust world and we make it better by holding our moral ground despite the enormous pressures to sell out.
I read these comments not as a defense of cheating, but as resignation that "This is just how the world is." Your view is right at home in a Star Trek The Next Generation world where everyone's needs are met and people act ethically, with good intentions and are in return treated fairly. A civilized, meritocratic world that doesn't exist. Like it or not, we live in a zero-sum dog-eat-dog world that pits neighbors against each other for the scraps left over after an elite few take 95% of the world's value. For every fraction of a percent you can grab, that's a fraction of a percent that some ethical moron can't grab. If you try to follow the Star Trek rules in this world, you're not going to get very far.
Look at this "personality type" as you call it: People who bullshit their way through life, self-promote, swindle, grift, fake it til they make it, hustle, exploit people's good intentions, take credit for the work of others, and so on... They aren't weirdo sociopaths who simply go get an MBA. They're CEOs, SVPs, business and political leaders, the ultrarich. They're Presidents and Senators. They are the elite, the few who our society is set up to most highly reward. Of course people who want to get ahead are going to emulate this behavior. It's practical. It works in the world that we have set up.
I'd love to live in the Star Trek world. I'm one of those naive suckers who thinks hard work in the trenches should be rewarded. At work I often sit there doing the dirty gritty work that needs to get done, while peers write bullshit presentations and get face-time with the execs, and schmooze their way to promotion after promotion, and it sucks. If I was younger and had a lot more ahead of me, I'd probably cheat and grift like the rest of em, and if I could send a message back decades to 20-year-old me it would probably be "lose the ethical spine and take whatever you can."
Look at this "personality type" as you call it: People who bullshit their way through life, self-promote, swindle, grift, fake it til they make it, hustle, exploit people's good intentions, take credit for the work of others, and so on... They aren't weirdo sociopaths who simply go get an MBA. They're CEOs, SVPs, business and political leaders, the ultrarich. They're Presidents and Senators. They are the elite, the few who our society is set up to most highly reward. Of course people who want to get ahead are going to emulate this behavior. It's practical. It works in the world that we have set up.
I'd love to live in the Star Trek world. I'm one of those naive suckers who thinks hard work in the trenches should be rewarded. At work I often sit there doing the dirty gritty work that needs to get done, while peers write bullshit presentations and get face-time with the execs, and schmooze their way to promotion after promotion, and it sucks. If I was younger and had a lot more ahead of me, I'd probably cheat and grift like the rest of em, and if I could send a message back decades to 20-year-old me it would probably be "lose the ethical spine and take whatever you can."
Thanks for sharing this. All I want to respond with is to say though that I don't know if the "personality type" that we mentioned is really all that better off. I'm skeptical at least.
I think it's more than likely that they've spent their whole lives trying to accumulate power without ever having cultivated the sense of how to use it. Sort of how in so many places all around the world people of less means seem to be so happy. Obviously there are exceptions abound and I'm not trying to present a quantitative argument one way or another.
Just that the people who live well aren't always the ones who are living "well", if you take my meaning.
I obviously can't be the judge of them and say "all the people I know that are like _that_ are fundamentally unfulfilled", but I can say about myself that the times where I had acted in that way didn't make me any happier, if I were to be honest with myself.
I think it's more than likely that they've spent their whole lives trying to accumulate power without ever having cultivated the sense of how to use it. Sort of how in so many places all around the world people of less means seem to be so happy. Obviously there are exceptions abound and I'm not trying to present a quantitative argument one way or another.
Just that the people who live well aren't always the ones who are living "well", if you take my meaning.
I obviously can't be the judge of them and say "all the people I know that are like _that_ are fundamentally unfulfilled", but I can say about myself that the times where I had acted in that way didn't make me any happier, if I were to be honest with myself.
The only thing stopping me doing that is the observation that these people don't seem to be very happy. Which makes sense, they have to live their life being that person.
Play the politics to get the things you need, by all means. But if life is a jungle then you're better off with a machete and your own skills (which can never be taken away from you) than a heavy bag of looted gold and a head full of fantasies about why you rightly own it.
Play the politics to get the things you need, by all means. But if life is a jungle then you're better off with a machete and your own skills (which can never be taken away from you) than a heavy bag of looted gold and a head full of fantasies about why you rightly own it.
Some of that may be true, but the world is not zero-sum, definitely not zero-sum at all levels.
If you go buy some wood and build a piece of furniture, you have created something of value that is more than what it was before, and the elite have nothing to say or benefit from it.
And if buying is a bridge too far, you can go into the woods, cut down a tree, and drag it home and fashion it into something.
Yes, entropy means everything will eventually slump into the heat-death of the universe, but here and now we can fight entropy and make our world, even if just the local world of where we live, a bit better.
If you go buy some wood and build a piece of furniture, you have created something of value that is more than what it was before, and the elite have nothing to say or benefit from it.
And if buying is a bridge too far, you can go into the woods, cut down a tree, and drag it home and fashion it into something.
Yes, entropy means everything will eventually slump into the heat-death of the universe, but here and now we can fight entropy and make our world, even if just the local world of where we live, a bit better.
>Your view is right at home in a Star Trek The Next Generation world where everyone's needs are met and people act ethically, with good intentions and are in return treated fairly. A civilized, meritocratic world that doesn't exist.
Right, but this is why ST:TNG is such a nice show to watch, because it's the kind of show that some of us, at least, want to live in. Whereas Star Trek Discovery is a terrible show to watch, because it's not. Who wants to watch a show about a bunch of unlikable characters that fight each other and backstab? (Apparently a fair number of people these days, or else the show would have died quickly.)
>Like it or not, we live in a zero-sum dog-eat-dog world
If you want to see the best depiction of the universe we live in, watch the Star Trek episodes about the Mirror Universe (esp. the "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter in Enterprise). Those episodes show humans as they really are in our universe, unlike the moral and conscientious humans depicted in ST:TNG.
Right, but this is why ST:TNG is such a nice show to watch, because it's the kind of show that some of us, at least, want to live in. Whereas Star Trek Discovery is a terrible show to watch, because it's not. Who wants to watch a show about a bunch of unlikable characters that fight each other and backstab? (Apparently a fair number of people these days, or else the show would have died quickly.)
>Like it or not, we live in a zero-sum dog-eat-dog world
If you want to see the best depiction of the universe we live in, watch the Star Trek episodes about the Mirror Universe (esp. the "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter in Enterprise). Those episodes show humans as they really are in our universe, unlike the moral and conscientious humans depicted in ST:TNG.
If I was younger, I would take the same path.
Ethics mean an entirely thing when you are older and you have loved ones that need to be cared. A little dishonesty can mean the difference between opportunities for your children or sending your children to a community college.
Ethics mean an entirely thing when you are older and you have loved ones that need to be cared. A little dishonesty can mean the difference between opportunities for your children or sending your children to a community college.
> I read these comments not as a defense of cheating, but as resignation that "This is just how the world is."
I'm also sympathetic with the cheaters. Everyone knows that these leetcode interviews are pretty dumb. Most people probably pass by memorizing everything and forgetting the stuff right afterwards. It's testing willingness to grind rather than ad hoc problem solving capabilities. If someone is capable of doing the job and just figuring out a way to get through the gatekeeping, I don't care. I know many people that cheated on exams at some point but are pretty legit otherwise.
> Look at this "personality type" as you call it: People who bullshit their way through life, self-promote, swindle, grift, fake it til they make it, hustle, exploit people's good intentions, take credit for the work of others, and so on.
There are a lot of psychological and societal mechanism that tend to punish this behavior. I'd rather be financially well enough off but honest rather than a super rich asshole.
> I'm one of those naive suckers who thinks hard work in the trenches should be rewarded. At work I often sit there doing the dirty gritty work that needs to get done, while peers write bullshit presentations and get face-time with the execs, and schmooze their way to promotion after promotion, and it sucks.
For myself, I decided that the best way is to be competent and do the hard work, but also to set boundaries, to ensure that my work is visible, to communicate ideas and feedback with execs and to fight against the fakers. You won't get anything if you don't ask for it. Taking down obvious fakes can take a while if the execs are too gullible, but it's worth doing.
If your execs are idiot assholes rather than competent people with some integrity, you should probably look for a job elsewhere.
I'm also sympathetic with the cheaters. Everyone knows that these leetcode interviews are pretty dumb. Most people probably pass by memorizing everything and forgetting the stuff right afterwards. It's testing willingness to grind rather than ad hoc problem solving capabilities. If someone is capable of doing the job and just figuring out a way to get through the gatekeeping, I don't care. I know many people that cheated on exams at some point but are pretty legit otherwise.
> Look at this "personality type" as you call it: People who bullshit their way through life, self-promote, swindle, grift, fake it til they make it, hustle, exploit people's good intentions, take credit for the work of others, and so on.
There are a lot of psychological and societal mechanism that tend to punish this behavior. I'd rather be financially well enough off but honest rather than a super rich asshole.
> I'm one of those naive suckers who thinks hard work in the trenches should be rewarded. At work I often sit there doing the dirty gritty work that needs to get done, while peers write bullshit presentations and get face-time with the execs, and schmooze their way to promotion after promotion, and it sucks.
For myself, I decided that the best way is to be competent and do the hard work, but also to set boundaries, to ensure that my work is visible, to communicate ideas and feedback with execs and to fight against the fakers. You won't get anything if you don't ask for it. Taking down obvious fakes can take a while if the execs are too gullible, but it's worth doing.
If your execs are idiot assholes rather than competent people with some integrity, you should probably look for a job elsewhere.
Kirk cheated in the Kobayashi Maru ;)
I never thought kirk was someone to look up to. Picard though....
I'd probably hire someone based on c) but not because they were promoted, but rather because their strategy shows they know how to solve real life problems creatively rather than have a bunch of test answers memorized, and because as pointed out at the end of the article, the person couldn't just mindlessly copy/paste, they had to understand the question find a relevant answer, digest it, understand both the question and the answer, and respond. That's more or less how many things work in real life (otherwise we can all stop going to StackOverflow now).
I think that if you want to be a spy the c.) mentality is basically a necessary requirement, just so long as you don't betray your team.
I'm against cheating and have never done it and probably never will, but I have an equal amount of disgust for leetcode in an interview process.
at a "top five" USA public University a couple of decades ago, it was indeed shocking to see calculated, methodical cheating on exams and study material.. for example a group would keep the significant test material from previous years with corrections, or coordinate homework assignments between a group and distribute the work load.. one person does one homework and gets five other homeworks for 'filter' classes handed to them..
I could easily say "ethnic Chinese" and be accurate, but what about the mid-IQ Frat guys from the "fly-over" states? all pale skins.. So I thought about it at the time and it seemed like sports teams, fraternities, strong social ties with a lot at stake.. those groups, not ethnicity, were a common theme.
In my own wanderings, since travelling internationally and gaining some maturity, I believe that calling out an ethnicity is indeed racist in a mild way. I agree with both "lots of students from India cheated" and "I am concerned about ethnic stereotype" .. both have some basis in reality.. We as animals are wired to see "us" and "other" .. so.. you have to choose to apply some sense and mercy, or not.
I could easily say "ethnic Chinese" and be accurate, but what about the mid-IQ Frat guys from the "fly-over" states? all pale skins.. So I thought about it at the time and it seemed like sports teams, fraternities, strong social ties with a lot at stake.. those groups, not ethnicity, were a common theme.
In my own wanderings, since travelling internationally and gaining some maturity, I believe that calling out an ethnicity is indeed racist in a mild way. I agree with both "lots of students from India cheated" and "I am concerned about ethnic stereotype" .. both have some basis in reality.. We as animals are wired to see "us" and "other" .. so.. you have to choose to apply some sense and mercy, or not.
> I for one think this kind of stuff is pretty shameful, and I don't see how the world can function if everyone were to think and act like that.
It functions because the premise, that interviews actually work as filters to choose the best candidates, is false.
It also works because finding the answers for a question is a skill, likely more valuable at work than memorizing a dozen of algorithm implementations.
The current interview culture is a joke.
It functions because the premise, that interviews actually work as filters to choose the best candidates, is false.
It also works because finding the answers for a question is a skill, likely more valuable at work than memorizing a dozen of algorithm implementations.
The current interview culture is a joke.
Sure if they worked with something important like plumbing, teaching, etc.. But anyone drawing money out of Amazon while (presumably) lowering productivity is doing work that is objectively leaving the world better off.
"were true, dyed in the wool nerds who simply thought making stuff was cool."
Now we're in 2023 - where making money is cool and building things is just a necessary evil to achieve that.
Now we're in 2023 - where making money is cool and building things is just a necessary evil to achieve that.
This turns us into low trust societies like China or India.
Which a lot of the blind demographic are from
Which a lot of the blind demographic are from
The US is a low trust society?
It’s not. We have functioning institutions that generally perform well over long periods of time. People respect the rule of law and there is an expectation of justice.
Spend time in Honduras or Brazil to see what low trust looks like.
Spend time in Honduras or Brazil to see what low trust looks like.
> People respect the rule of law and there is an expectation of justice.
I'll preface this comment by saying, I recognize that the injustices in Honduras and Brazil are not at all like what we see in the U.S. But my comment is about the perception of justice in the U.S. by common citizens (in my opinion).
This is a very privileged take. Vast numbers of people in the United States of America do not believe this to be true.
The sides don't matter. Leftists believe that black people can be executed at will. Rightists believe that white people can be imprisoned for life, for doing their job (police) or defending themselves.
I'm honestly surprised to hear this take. Up to this point, you may be disagreeing with me, thinking I'm crazy, or whatever. But consider the three letter agencies. CIA, FBI, ATF, doesn't matter how you spell them. They have supranational powers which are not balanced by any civilian or even political oversight whatsoever.
People are allowed to inject drugs in the streets (where it's illegal), menace, defecate in the streets, expose themselves, rob, steal, and nothing at all really happens.
Americans haven't woken up yet, but the rule of law is already dead.
I'll preface this comment by saying, I recognize that the injustices in Honduras and Brazil are not at all like what we see in the U.S. But my comment is about the perception of justice in the U.S. by common citizens (in my opinion).
This is a very privileged take. Vast numbers of people in the United States of America do not believe this to be true.
The sides don't matter. Leftists believe that black people can be executed at will. Rightists believe that white people can be imprisoned for life, for doing their job (police) or defending themselves.
I'm honestly surprised to hear this take. Up to this point, you may be disagreeing with me, thinking I'm crazy, or whatever. But consider the three letter agencies. CIA, FBI, ATF, doesn't matter how you spell them. They have supranational powers which are not balanced by any civilian or even political oversight whatsoever.
People are allowed to inject drugs in the streets (where it's illegal), menace, defecate in the streets, expose themselves, rob, steal, and nothing at all really happens.
Americans haven't woken up yet, but the rule of law is already dead.
>We have functioning institutions that generally perform well over long periods of time
So, how long are we waiting...?
So, how long are we waiting...?
Spend time in a true high trust society and you would understand that US is low trust. Doesn't matter how bad it is in SA.
It is trending that way.
It sounds like you find cheating shameful for vague moralistic reasons that you have not disclosed.
Software is full of cheating. I am really convinced that maybe 85% (that's actually being generous) of developers have no idea what they are doing. They know enough to complete some tiny agile tasks and push a few lines into a pull request. These people are either suffering from imposter syndrome, deliberately cheating, or just don't care. All the real decisions are made by that last 15%. That's why almost nobody can write software anymore without a plethora of open source software delivering most of their product for them.
In my mind if you aren't part of that last 15% you are cheating whether or not its deliberate. Everybody wants to get paid.
If you want to reduce the amount of cheating in software then the industry must be willing to impose minimal standards of acceptable practice. The industry is not willing to do so.
There are a couple of reasons why such prolific cheating is allowed (and even encouraged):
* Developers are not taught to plan. I take this for granted being a military guy, but seriously I have seen many children with a greater planning ability than many developers tasked with a new product effort. Its like the abstractness of software completely destroys any capability to put simple steps in order. This is why many businesses will offload this to business analysts and project managers.
* Developers are not taught to write. Although many of these people have bachelor's degrees so many cannot put their thoughts into even a simple bullet list.
* There are no ethics in software. The closest thing for most developers might be something like an NDA at initial on boarding. Otherwise, ethics is entirely off loaded to a legal team who mandate areas of compliance.
* The goals of hiring/employment often do not align to the skills required to perform product delivery. This indicates employers have completely lost faith in candidate preparation and/or candidate availability and are just willing to take what they can get. Typically that means dumbing things down to widen the pool of availability.
* Many developers are grossly entitled. The most important word for most developers: easiness. Comparatively nothing else matters, and they will fight you to death on this.
Edit: two grammar corrections.
Software is full of cheating. I am really convinced that maybe 85% (that's actually being generous) of developers have no idea what they are doing. They know enough to complete some tiny agile tasks and push a few lines into a pull request. These people are either suffering from imposter syndrome, deliberately cheating, or just don't care. All the real decisions are made by that last 15%. That's why almost nobody can write software anymore without a plethora of open source software delivering most of their product for them.
In my mind if you aren't part of that last 15% you are cheating whether or not its deliberate. Everybody wants to get paid.
If you want to reduce the amount of cheating in software then the industry must be willing to impose minimal standards of acceptable practice. The industry is not willing to do so.
There are a couple of reasons why such prolific cheating is allowed (and even encouraged):
* Developers are not taught to plan. I take this for granted being a military guy, but seriously I have seen many children with a greater planning ability than many developers tasked with a new product effort. Its like the abstractness of software completely destroys any capability to put simple steps in order. This is why many businesses will offload this to business analysts and project managers.
* Developers are not taught to write. Although many of these people have bachelor's degrees so many cannot put their thoughts into even a simple bullet list.
* There are no ethics in software. The closest thing for most developers might be something like an NDA at initial on boarding. Otherwise, ethics is entirely off loaded to a legal team who mandate areas of compliance.
* The goals of hiring/employment often do not align to the skills required to perform product delivery. This indicates employers have completely lost faith in candidate preparation and/or candidate availability and are just willing to take what they can get. Typically that means dumbing things down to widen the pool of availability.
* Many developers are grossly entitled. The most important word for most developers: easiness. Comparatively nothing else matters, and they will fight you to death on this.
Edit: two grammar corrections.
"Developers are not taught to write. Although many of these people have bachelor's degrees so many cannot put their thoughts into even a simple bullet list." This is 100% true and it's frustrating. I think it applies to almost everybody though, not just developers.
I think an alternative to higher standards would be lower pay. I am convinced that would weed out many of the people who don't actually care about software engineering. IMO, the majority of software development is not that difficult and lots of companies are overpaying for people who are just plumbing data from point A to point B and using libraries they didn't develop and have a weak understanding of.
I think an alternative to higher standards would be lower pay. I am convinced that would weed out many of the people who don't actually care about software engineering. IMO, the majority of software development is not that difficult and lots of companies are overpaying for people who are just plumbing data from point A to point B and using libraries they didn't develop and have a weak understanding of.
I think you're being unfairly downvoted here, and you bring up a lot of good points.
> It sounds like you find cheating shameful for vague moralistic reasons that you have not disclosed.
That's absolutely right. I didn't elaborate at all.
> That's why almost nobody can writing software anymore
Honestly though I think that writing software is just hard.
> must be willing to impose minimal standards of acceptable practice
Yeah this is an interesting idea. Like how attorneys have to pass a bar. I don't really know how it would go, but I do believe that the industry already has a hard enough of a time hiring and this would just make things that much harder. Some organizations though seem to have a knack for improving their new hires by a lot, so it's not like all these organizations are evil, just most are probably incompetent. Again, software is hard.
> The goals of hiring/employment often do not align to the skills required to perform product delivery.
Yeah, I would say in general that bad incentives are abound.
I think a lot of the points you brought up are products of strange market dynamics. For so long companies haven't really felt the weight of gravity and have had so much investor money that it feels like a lot of what one could consider fundamentals have been tossed out the window in favor of other things. This is where perverse incentives start to manifest in my view.
> It sounds like you find cheating shameful for vague moralistic reasons that you have not disclosed.
That's absolutely right. I didn't elaborate at all.
> That's why almost nobody can writing software anymore
Honestly though I think that writing software is just hard.
> must be willing to impose minimal standards of acceptable practice
Yeah this is an interesting idea. Like how attorneys have to pass a bar. I don't really know how it would go, but I do believe that the industry already has a hard enough of a time hiring and this would just make things that much harder. Some organizations though seem to have a knack for improving their new hires by a lot, so it's not like all these organizations are evil, just most are probably incompetent. Again, software is hard.
> The goals of hiring/employment often do not align to the skills required to perform product delivery.
Yeah, I would say in general that bad incentives are abound.
I think a lot of the points you brought up are products of strange market dynamics. For so long companies haven't really felt the weight of gravity and have had so much investor money that it feels like a lot of what one could consider fundamentals have been tossed out the window in favor of other things. This is where perverse incentives start to manifest in my view.
> There are a couple of reasons why such prolific cheating is allowed (and even encouraged):
Not sure how the listed points would be mitigated by cheating.
Further:
> There are no ethics in software.
Well, speak for yourself, but obviously many developers are greatly concerned about the license of their product as well as of the tools they use.
> Many developers are grossly entitled. The most important word for most developers: easiness. Comparatively nothing else matters, and they will fight you to death on this.
Well, many might be, but insisting on easiness might have another reason: it's always more difficult than it seems in the beginning and if a project ought to have a chance of becoming successful it ought to seem easy. That's just speaking from experience. If you want to get to the moon, you better plan for an Apollo-size budget and a few explosions.
Not sure how the listed points would be mitigated by cheating.
Further:
> There are no ethics in software.
Well, speak for yourself, but obviously many developers are greatly concerned about the license of their product as well as of the tools they use.
> Many developers are grossly entitled. The most important word for most developers: easiness. Comparatively nothing else matters, and they will fight you to death on this.
Well, many might be, but insisting on easiness might have another reason: it's always more difficult than it seems in the beginning and if a project ought to have a chance of becoming successful it ought to seem easy. That's just speaking from experience. If you want to get to the moon, you better plan for an Apollo-size budget and a few explosions.
I'll add d)
Cheating is okay because most interview processes is BS to start with. In most cases the interview itself is a dog and pony show, often reflecting the outright incompetence of the interviewers or organizations that are hiring.
> I guess the silver lining is there will probably be incredible opportunity down the road to combat this,
You are being naive here. Many people value honesty in principle, but are not willing to enforce it in practice. For example if they catch a close, likable colleague or friend in the act of cheating, they will not fire them.
Cheating is okay because most interview processes is BS to start with. In most cases the interview itself is a dog and pony show, often reflecting the outright incompetence of the interviewers or organizations that are hiring.
> I guess the silver lining is there will probably be incredible opportunity down the road to combat this,
You are being naive here. Many people value honesty in principle, but are not willing to enforce it in practice. For example if they catch a close, likable colleague or friend in the act of cheating, they will not fire them.
> "there will probably be incredible opportunity down the road to combat this,"
I am curious to hear more about what you mean by this.
I crave living in a high trust society. I've attempted to act as though I do (though not with complete success), but reality often rebuffs me. I am discouraged by the high (and seemingly increasing) "capacity to benefit from dishonesty," especially as I feel powerless to meaningfully affect this trend/condition.
It sounds like you see ways in which society can shift to be higher trust. Can you elaborate?
I am curious to hear more about what you mean by this.
I crave living in a high trust society. I've attempted to act as though I do (though not with complete success), but reality often rebuffs me. I am discouraged by the high (and seemingly increasing) "capacity to benefit from dishonesty," especially as I feel powerless to meaningfully affect this trend/condition.
It sounds like you see ways in which society can shift to be higher trust. Can you elaborate?
Yeah I don't believe trying to contain cheating and dishonesty to specific contexts can last, from my limited experience for people who do this it inevitably starts to leak to other aspects of their life. Shielding behind organized structures is an illusions (also the root of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_evil), in the end you are deceiving other human beings.
Maybe the commenters had a different take, but I the OP's post as, "The system is broken and this is proof." Not necessarily condoning cheating itself.
I certainly agree though that cheating is a sad thing to build your life on, regardless of whether the system is broken or not. Obviously there are exceptions to this as things get more extreme, but a strong desire to work at amazon is not what I would call extreme lol.
I certainly agree though that cheating is a sad thing to build your life on, regardless of whether the system is broken or not. Obviously there are exceptions to this as things get more extreme, but a strong desire to work at amazon is not what I would call extreme lol.
Yes, this is roughly my take. The cheating is bad and should not be condoned. That said, it looks like a serious indictment of the interview process if someone couldn't pass it without cheating and but then goes on to excel at the actual job. It means the interview filter process is selecting the wrong things and needs to be scrapped and replaced*. Of course, what to replace it with is a huge question on its own too.
*In fairness an alternative explanation is that the promotion process is also broken and rewarding the wrong things.
*In fairness an alternative explanation is that the promotion process is also broken and rewarding the wrong things.
>>promotion process is distinct from the interview process
Promotions often have nothing to do with merit. It takes a lot of political manoeuvring, back room dealing, negotiations, packet building, documentation, positions trading, making allies to building support/consensus etc etc.
People who cheat are exactly the kind of people who are likely to win big in these processes.
Promotions often have nothing to do with merit. It takes a lot of political manoeuvring, back room dealing, negotiations, packet building, documentation, positions trading, making allies to building support/consensus etc etc.
People who cheat are exactly the kind of people who are likely to win big in these processes.
> c.) that the cheaters clearly are skilled after all because of all their success, as evidenced by being promoted, so it's ok.
Quite possibly that some commentators think that way, but I doubt that cheaters suddenly stop cheating after the interview, particularly not if it worked out so well for them. I rather think they'll continue their path of alternative facts; blaming others for failures, mis-attributing successes, mis-charecterizing their contributions, lying, gas-lighting, bullying and even squeezing their colleagues out of their job. There might be work environments where this is a net positive for the organization, but I can't think of one right now.
Quite possibly that some commentators think that way, but I doubt that cheaters suddenly stop cheating after the interview, particularly not if it worked out so well for them. I rather think they'll continue their path of alternative facts; blaming others for failures, mis-attributing successes, mis-charecterizing their contributions, lying, gas-lighting, bullying and even squeezing their colleagues out of their job. There might be work environments where this is a net positive for the organization, but I can't think of one right now.
I dont think anyone's claiming this isn't shameful; they're just saying it works.
And when real people are faced with a broken system which penalises honesty and rewards cheating, many will choose pragmatically rather than idealistically.
And when real people are faced with a broken system which penalises honesty and rewards cheating, many will choose pragmatically rather than idealistically.
> that it isn't inherent to the discipline of technology itself anymore
Sorry to say, but it never was. Anti-cheaters have always been the extreme minority in every profession since the dawn of man.
Sorry to say, but it never was. Anti-cheaters have always been the extreme minority in every profession since the dawn of man.
OP out here trying to say Pets.com wasn't cheating.
>> Like, there was a time where this kind of personality type would just go get an MBA
It seems like you are implying that a person who gets an MBA is the type of person who would cheat on a test. This fits with a ubiquitous contempt for MBAs and also project managers that comes up a lot on this site. There is a lot of room for criticism of business schools and middle managers in tech. But if you really think of people like that as more likely to be dishonest you are being irrational.
It seems like you are implying that a person who gets an MBA is the type of person who would cheat on a test. This fits with a ubiquitous contempt for MBAs and also project managers that comes up a lot on this site. There is a lot of room for criticism of business schools and middle managers in tech. But if you really think of people like that as more likely to be dishonest you are being irrational.
Respectfully, I disagree. At it's core, business school is the study of making money. How to make power and social status numbers go up.
The business domain is interesting, and intellectually deep and rewarding, but without the money, all interest goes away. The money is the point.
With tech, there are complicated technical mechanisms. They still exist to make money, but, there are many layers of translation in between. And it seems easier for humans to be interested in computers in a more pure way, because of these layers between. Kinda like how a gift card "feels" more personal than cash even though it's a strictly worse gift.
So I think business school attracts many more "ends justifies the means" types of people because of these inherent properties.
The business domain is interesting, and intellectually deep and rewarding, but without the money, all interest goes away. The money is the point.
With tech, there are complicated technical mechanisms. They still exist to make money, but, there are many layers of translation in between. And it seems easier for humans to be interested in computers in a more pure way, because of these layers between. Kinda like how a gift card "feels" more personal than cash even though it's a strictly worse gift.
So I think business school attracts many more "ends justifies the means" types of people because of these inherent properties.
That's a good argument, honestly. Where I would disagree with at its core an MBA studies how to manage and administer an organization. It's in the name. That's also how schools see themselves, right or wrong.
In the US we associate business and management with money, so maybe you are right. I tend to think people are people and you get "ends justify the means" types in managers, entrepreneurs and even engineers.
In the US we associate business and management with money, so maybe you are right. I tend to think people are people and you get "ends justify the means" types in managers, entrepreneurs and even engineers.
If people can do there job well enough to get promoted, that does tell you that the interview process is broken and not indicative of how well someone can perform on the job.
Also, our current society don't respect slow but deliberate thinkers like June Huh and expect them to perform better at a sprint (interview) rather than marathon (job environment).
https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-...
On any given day, Huh does about three hours of focused work.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/june-huh-high-school-dropout-...
On any given day, Huh does about three hours of focused work.
No. In every testing or selection system there will be people who could have made it, but didn't make the cut.
Either we can accept some amount of arbitrariness, and that there are plenty of opportunities (try again next year?), or everyone who didn't make it can decide to cheat (they're probably good enough right?)
Which of these responses makes sense to you?
Either we can accept some amount of arbitrariness, and that there are plenty of opportunities (try again next year?), or everyone who didn't make it can decide to cheat (they're probably good enough right?)
Which of these responses makes sense to you?
In many respects the world functions as it does because not everyone thinks and acts like that. Anytime there is significant power / resource asymmetry for any period of time, it seems it will eventually be captured by sociopaths / psychopaths.
>it seems it will eventually be captured by sociopaths / psychopaths.
This Is unfortunately generally true. It generally happens because well intentioned functioning people, allow the sociopaths to take over (because it's unpleasant to confront them) , even in tiny groups. I think this can be stalled by an ever vigilant group. People who are willing to take on the job of constant vigilance in addition to their regular tasks are few and far be in between. Consequently such groups are very few and probably are never even public, hence we never hear of them.
This Is unfortunately generally true. It generally happens because well intentioned functioning people, allow the sociopaths to take over (because it's unpleasant to confront them) , even in tiny groups. I think this can be stalled by an ever vigilant group. People who are willing to take on the job of constant vigilance in addition to their regular tasks are few and far be in between. Consequently such groups are very few and probably are never even public, hence we never hear of them.
Be careful, you are starting to sound like an old person.
https://historyhustle.com/2500-years-of-people-complaining-a...
https://historyhustle.com/2500-years-of-people-complaining-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals#List_of_bi...
check out the flags at the top of the list.
check out the flags at the top of the list.
I'll even go a step further. In some cases cheaters are doing better, because that kind of behavior is what's expected of them in "the real world", just don't get caught.
People with integrity get run over.
People with integrity get run over.
Yeah I'm more surprised about the comments than the actual story.
Specially with people thinking that the interview process is broken, but somehow the promotion process is pristine and unhackable.
Specially with people thinking that the interview process is broken, but somehow the promotion process is pristine and unhackable.
Like Canada Bill Jones said, "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
This is work we're talking about. If somebody will pay $250,000 because somebody else can answer a trivia question, people will figure out how to answer that trivia question correctly.
I don't have any problem with it. If your business is getting suckered by people with some 2-laptop scheme, it's on you to fix it. Or if the 2-laptop people end up being good enough at the job, who cares?
This is work we're talking about. If somebody will pay $250,000 because somebody else can answer a trivia question, people will figure out how to answer that trivia question correctly.
I don't have any problem with it. If your business is getting suckered by people with some 2-laptop scheme, it's on you to fix it. Or if the 2-laptop people end up being good enough at the job, who cares?
Makes you wonder just what type of people end up in manager roles:)
every liar justifies it to themselves somehow. committing to dealing honestly with other people is a very serious undertaking, it's a struggle against nurture and nature that lasts a lifetime. some people don't see the value of it - some people see the value, but don't think it's worth the risk.
This is why I left the tech industry. Nothing but losers with no skills getting hired. No sympathy for anyone fired
No sympathy for someone losing their livelihood, because they're "too weak"? That's pretty dark.
whitemary(4)
You don't actually offer any argument other than saying it's bad cause it's bad.
If everyone who cheated and passed performed so well that they got promotions then the world would be a much better place than reality where most cheaters fail hilariously.
If you can't even be bothered to give employees a real interview you don't care about the company and at that point the company is already bloated.
What kind of person are you that when reading a story and seeing 100 wrong things you pick out the one thing that is arguable and die on that hill? An VLLM sycophant?
If everyone who cheated and passed performed so well that they got promotions then the world would be a much better place than reality where most cheaters fail hilariously.
If you can't even be bothered to give employees a real interview you don't care about the company and at that point the company is already bloated.
What kind of person are you that when reading a story and seeing 100 wrong things you pick out the one thing that is arguable and die on that hill? An VLLM sycophant?
Does VLLM stand for very LLM?
I dislike cheating. I've taken ~50 interviews and in 90% of them cheated:
a) I could hear their keyboard clacking when they googled the answer
b) they'd stall with "umm" and "ooo" while their friend googles the answer and shows it to them
c) (the best one) they'd memorize everything from leetcode style solutions and definitions to mathematics MCQs.
In my country, you're the odd one out if you have an exam or an interview and you don't prepare for cheating. It's a cultural expectation among peers to cheat to get ahead.
To work around this, I follow the advice I've read here on HN:
1) Ask them about their programming experience. Bugs they ran into, solutions they thought of, implementation of those solutions etc.
2) take a problem I faced in my work and present it to them and observe how they navigate the problem to reach a solution. They don't have to solve it, I just see their approach
3) just talk to them while asking basic language syntax and definitions. Again, the goal here is to check if they've memorized the answers or are they speaking from experience. If the answer is a regurgitation of some interview prep website, probe deeper to see if they know what they're saying.
The downside of this approach is, of course, time. It takes 40 minutes to an hour for each of these interviews. Time that sometimes I don't have and I have to move some stuff around to accommodate, work late to cover up or delegate. This approach has worked for me so far. I've hired 5 people in my team and all of them have been good hires.
EDIT: formatting and grammar
a) I could hear their keyboard clacking when they googled the answer
b) they'd stall with "umm" and "ooo" while their friend googles the answer and shows it to them
c) (the best one) they'd memorize everything from leetcode style solutions and definitions to mathematics MCQs.
In my country, you're the odd one out if you have an exam or an interview and you don't prepare for cheating. It's a cultural expectation among peers to cheat to get ahead.
To work around this, I follow the advice I've read here on HN:
1) Ask them about their programming experience. Bugs they ran into, solutions they thought of, implementation of those solutions etc.
2) take a problem I faced in my work and present it to them and observe how they navigate the problem to reach a solution. They don't have to solve it, I just see their approach
3) just talk to them while asking basic language syntax and definitions. Again, the goal here is to check if they've memorized the answers or are they speaking from experience. If the answer is a regurgitation of some interview prep website, probe deeper to see if they know what they're saying.
The downside of this approach is, of course, time. It takes 40 minutes to an hour for each of these interviews. Time that sometimes I don't have and I have to move some stuff around to accommodate, work late to cover up or delegate. This approach has worked for me so far. I've hired 5 people in my team and all of them have been good hires.
EDIT: formatting and grammar
> c) (the best one) memorize everything from leetcode style solutions and definitions to mathematics MCQs.
Couldn't it be argued that memorizing leetcode solutions IS NOT cheating? Seems like it would be better to understand things at a fundamental level, but its still proof of ability to master the problem in and takes a lot of effort.
Especially if the person was upfront about the fact they could solve the problem but still didn't understand everything about it.
Couldn't it be argued that memorizing leetcode solutions IS NOT cheating? Seems like it would be better to understand things at a fundamental level, but its still proof of ability to master the problem in and takes a lot of effort.
Especially if the person was upfront about the fact they could solve the problem but still didn't understand everything about it.
The problem was that he was terrible at problem solving. He failed at simple logical problems like flattening a nested json array, cleaning data before running operations on it, etc. And probing further on his memorized answers, he couldn't explain anything. He'd just repeat the same thing but change voice of the sentence (active/passive)
TBF I don't think this is bad. The "cheating" involved seems a closer match to the actual real world conditions of the doing the job than the artificial "no internet allowed" assessment. If the candidates can get stuff done but need the internet as a reference, that's still getting stuff done. Not surprising that they are now getting promoted given they can not only get stuff done, but were resourceful enough to find a method to "cheat" and also pull it off successfully whilst being monitored.
The goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities. Henceforth, cheating cannot be justified.
If the assessment has no relationship to the job requirements then the test assessment cannot be justified either
That might be true, but is a different issue. It's certainly doesn't justify dishonesty.
That's a silly argument. There are many jobs at which being smart is an advantage. IQ tests correlate fairly well with being smart. Giving an IQ test could then give you a group of people that are more likely to be smart than the initial interviewing population. Assuming the job is not "taking IQ tests" is the assessment unjustified?
Seems irrelevant if the people getting the job by cheating are considered high performers getting promotions
I think you took too much from implication. TFA states that they are getting promotions. Everything else is assumptions:
1. They are considered high performers (maybe promotions are on a schedule?)
2. They are actually high performers (some people can bullshit their way through a job for years).
3. They are outperforming a hypothetical person who didn't cheat on the test and would have been hired instead of them with an honest assessment.
1. They are considered high performers (maybe promotions are on a schedule?)
2. They are actually high performers (some people can bullshit their way through a job for years).
3. They are outperforming a hypothetical person who didn't cheat on the test and would have been hired instead of them with an honest assessment.
If an org can’t tell who is good and worthy of promotion when they’re working for them every day, they have no chance of doing so in an interview
As much as I hate the current interview process, this isn't true.
The justification foe the assessment is that the assessment is the defined set of hoops that the company who you are trying to get paid by has assigned.
The justification foe the assessment is that the assessment is the defined set of hoops that the company who you are trying to get paid by has assigned.
Isn't that a bit circular? "This is the assignment because the assignment is this"?
> The goal of interviews and assignments is not to achieve an outcome but to assess someone’s abilities.
Maybe to the interviewer. But for the applicant the goal is to achieve an outcome.
Maybe to the interviewer. But for the applicant the goal is to achieve an outcome.
Why not just literally take the job?
As an interviewer, I don't care if the candidates cheat.
I can assess his abilities either way.
I can assess his abilities either way.
When presented with a problem she not only found a solution, but shared that solution with her peers. And has been promoted at her jobsite. As far as I can see, the interview properly assessed her abilities and found her qualified for the job.
In short, the interview process worked as intended.
In short, the interview process worked as intended.
Technically, it would be better if everybody had internet access.
BUT, it means that Amazon creating a selection pressure for people who cheat. Long term this will be corrosive to the organizational fiber of the corporation as idiotic unrealistic leetcode questions are to the technical fiber.
Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions.
BUT, it means that Amazon creating a selection pressure for people who cheat. Long term this will be corrosive to the organizational fiber of the corporation as idiotic unrealistic leetcode questions are to the technical fiber.
Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions.
> Amazon has become way buggier for me over the last few years and so has Google. I think this is intimately connected to their organizational dysfunctions.
People are just riding these organizations down as they crash, starting at the very top with the CEOs. The same feeling extends to the countries and societies where these things operate. Vultures upon a corpse.
People are just riding these organizations down as they crash, starting at the very top with the CEOs. The same feeling extends to the countries and societies where these things operate. Vultures upon a corpse.
I wouldn’t blame the devs for their quality issues. Try ownership.
Finger pointing isn’t a great signal.
Quality isn’t a skill issue. It’s prioritization. Ownership decides how devs spend their time.
Get stuff done but not exactly meet all of the requirements.
So maybe features will get implemented but rules and laws not necessarily respected.
And perhaps that’s useful for some companies.
So maybe features will get implemented but rules and laws not necessarily respected.
And perhaps that’s useful for some companies.
“No internet during dev” is not a business requirement, it’s hazing
When I used to run interviews (no longer working) I’d learn the most from seeing how candidates resourcefully used google, skimmed results, found relevant info. That was immediately revealing.
When I used to run interviews (no longer working) I’d learn the most from seeing how candidates resourcefully used google, skimmed results, found relevant info. That was immediately revealing.
I think it’s a popular approach to see the hiring process as hazing, at least in some companies. I.e. to throw random hurdles, later check who’s doing best and hire them.
I saw companies state that openly. E.g. saying: we’re all competent programmers, none of us like leetcode and we don’t use that in our actual job, but we need a way to filter candidates and this seems the best practical solution.
Again, perhaps desperate people and/or hustlers make for a good workforce, especially in some companies.
I saw companies state that openly. E.g. saying: we’re all competent programmers, none of us like leetcode and we don’t use that in our actual job, but we need a way to filter candidates and this seems the best practical solution.
Again, perhaps desperate people and/or hustlers make for a good workforce, especially in some companies.
"Interview should be a real world test of my abilities."
"OK, take two weeks and create a feature."
"No, not like that."
"OK, take two weeks and create a feature."
"No, not like that."
Who said that (not me)
Might not be you, but I've seen tons of people on this board bemoan take-home interview tests.
Usually people are only annoyed if they're not paid for their (excessive for an interview) time.
Two weeks worth of contractor rates for a finished feature as an interview? Sign me up!
Two weeks worth of contractor rates for a finished feature as an interview? Sign me up!
If you're willing to go to such lengths in order to be deceptive, it reflects very badly on your moral character. I wouldn't want to work with people like that and we should not reward that kind of behavior.
I am not particularly fond of this kind of moral flexibility. It's lying and the person found ways to justify themselves. This isn't the kind of person I can trust to be honest with me, they don't seem reliable either. Thanks, but no thanks.
Serious question: why do you care so much?
Its just a job. You are drone #23423 who will be sacrificed at any moment for the actual shareholders of the company (ie. not you with your 200k stock bonus). They don't give a shit about you, and you shouldn't care so much when you have no equity.
Get the money, enjoy YOUR life, and move on.
If you really care so much, go start your own company and make 100x more money than those clowns. And no offense but software engineering is probably one of the easiest jobs in the world, all things considered. Literally the only investment you need to get started is a working computer of any kind.
I don't like this kind of shitty behavior either, but that's the world we live in. I'm not going to go out of my way to make any changes when I have literally no upside/equity, I'd rather go do my own thing.
Its just a job. You are drone #23423 who will be sacrificed at any moment for the actual shareholders of the company (ie. not you with your 200k stock bonus). They don't give a shit about you, and you shouldn't care so much when you have no equity.
Get the money, enjoy YOUR life, and move on.
If you really care so much, go start your own company and make 100x more money than those clowns. And no offense but software engineering is probably one of the easiest jobs in the world, all things considered. Literally the only investment you need to get started is a working computer of any kind.
I don't like this kind of shitty behavior either, but that's the world we live in. I'm not going to go out of my way to make any changes when I have literally no upside/equity, I'd rather go do my own thing.
Nice morality shaming. The truth is as humans we are capable of abstract thought, and wishing for a world where we don't have to choose between compromise our principles or being judged by society, even sometimes friends & family, as a "loser".
Ok but you’re not going to ever make any changes when you don’t understand or choose not to accept the terms/reality of the game itself.
Not everyone can "just be amoral bro". People often have serious hinderances to that (be it religion, personal philosophy, a conscience, whatever).
Ok… I’m not saying it’s good or bad. I’m just saying people should know their place and be realistic. The best way to practice your morals (I’m religious) is in your own enterprise.
You can bust your ass all you want but ultimately if you’re not in the shareholder class (again not the 200k bonus you got that’s chump change) you are a resource. A pod. That can be taken offline immediately.
Go start your own business that you run with good morals. That’s what I did.
I far enjoy the gains from that than any 400k plus TC job where I’m just a cog. And btw I’ve never received less than a EE or equivalent rating. Still been affected by dumb company wide policies.
You can bust your ass all you want but ultimately if you’re not in the shareholder class (again not the 200k bonus you got that’s chump change) you are a resource. A pod. That can be taken offline immediately.
Go start your own business that you run with good morals. That’s what I did.
I far enjoy the gains from that than any 400k plus TC job where I’m just a cog. And btw I’ve never received less than a EE or equivalent rating. Still been affected by dumb company wide policies.
I'm not swayed by cat-is-out-of-the-bag arguments. Bad things can still be bad even while lots of people do the bad thing.
Cheating is bad, full stop. These kinds of unethical people likely contribute to a toxic team culture, back-stabbing and acting in bad faith to get ahead.
But if you've designed your interview process in a way that can be easily beaten by in-the-moment googling, then you're getting the candidates you deserve. And since these people were promoted, then I guess the system worked.
Miss me with these companies/teams.
But if you've designed your interview process in a way that can be easily beaten by in-the-moment googling, then you're getting the candidates you deserve. And since these people were promoted, then I guess the system worked.
Miss me with these companies/teams.
It's driven purely by jealousy and an intrinsic sense of "fairness" that isn't very logical when you step back and think for a second. I've met plenty of people like this. They aren't thinking about how it's weird to want a terrible team at a terrible company to have a perfectly fair hiring process, and also imply that _they_ should be hired for this awful job as well. It's entirely looking at the price tag and being jealous. In other words, typical Blind culture.
I'll make the obvious point that these interviews were not good predictors of success at the companies.
In general, I've found in 15 years of interviews that interviews are not highly correlated with the work at any given company. I wish we would move beyond cargo cult interview styles and base interviews (and screening, for that matter) on the actual work and culture of each company.
In general, I've found in 15 years of interviews that interviews are not highly correlated with the work at any given company. I wish we would move beyond cargo cult interview styles and base interviews (and screening, for that matter) on the actual work and culture of each company.
I ran a largish statistical analysis where I was working on all interviews and employee ratings for the following year (16000 data points).
My conclusion was that:
* some interview problems carried zero signal
* some interviewers are really good at identifying strong candidates, and others correlate negatively! On average interviewers rating is a weak signal (<0.25. Correlation)
* geographic location is a medium signal (0.2)
* a relevant degree is a strong signal (0.4)
* choice of programming language is the strongest signal (>0.8 correlation (or anti-) for some languages, and some.
There is some selection bias though since candidates who were rejected did not get a chance at the job so we didn’t have a rating for them.
My conclusion was that:
* some interview problems carried zero signal
* some interviewers are really good at identifying strong candidates, and others correlate negatively! On average interviewers rating is a weak signal (<0.25. Correlation)
* geographic location is a medium signal (0.2)
* a relevant degree is a strong signal (0.4)
* choice of programming language is the strongest signal (>0.8 correlation (or anti-) for some languages, and some.
There is some selection bias though since candidates who were rejected did not get a chance at the job so we didn’t have a rating for them.
The choice of language being a signal is interesting. That goes against my intuition.
Can you elaborate?
Can you elaborate?
Could rhyme with PG's "Python Paradox" essay from 20 years ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
> It's a lot of work to learn a new programming language. And people don't learn Python because it will get them a job; they learn it because they genuinely like to program and aren't satisfied with the languages they already know.
> Which makes them exactly the kind of programmers companies should want to hire. Hence what, for lack of a better name, I'll call the Python paradox: if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers, because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn it. And for programmers the paradox is even more pronounced: the language to learn, if you want to get a good job, is a language that people don't learn merely to get a job.
I wonder correlations eckesicle found, and what languages would fit that profile today.
> It's a lot of work to learn a new programming language. And people don't learn Python because it will get them a job; they learn it because they genuinely like to program and aren't satisfied with the languages they already know.
> Which makes them exactly the kind of programmers companies should want to hire. Hence what, for lack of a better name, I'll call the Python paradox: if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers, because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn it. And for programmers the paradox is even more pronounced: the language to learn, if you want to get a good job, is a language that people don't learn merely to get a job.
I wonder correlations eckesicle found, and what languages would fit that profile today.
My intuition would expect the two to be correlated.
All anecdotal evidence I've seen points to the language mattering a great deal since only those people who are enthusiastic about niche languages, tend to put more time in learning/practicing programming and all other things being equal, spending more time on a skill correlates to being better at said skill.
All anecdotal evidence I've seen points to the language mattering a great deal since only those people who are enthusiastic about niche languages, tend to put more time in learning/practicing programming and all other things being equal, spending more time on a skill correlates to being better at said skill.
Yes. Interviewees were free to pick any language to attack their problem. We found that interviewees who picked certain languages performed consistently worse during their interviews, and also received worse feedback in their 360-review after working for a year (if they passed).
The bottom languages were: Java C++ Php
They also made up the bulk of interviews. I suspect that Java and c++ together accounted for about 75% of all interviews.
Languages like ruby, python and golang increased your chances of passing the interview as well as getting good peer feedback one year on.
More niche languages (rust, erlang etc) didn’t have enough data points to be analysed separately, but if you grouped them they were the choice of the strongest candidates.
The bottom languages were: Java C++ Php
They also made up the bulk of interviews. I suspect that Java and c++ together accounted for about 75% of all interviews.
Languages like ruby, python and golang increased your chances of passing the interview as well as getting good peer feedback one year on.
More niche languages (rust, erlang etc) didn’t have enough data points to be analysed separately, but if you grouped them they were the choice of the strongest candidates.
Didn’t know the language can be a factor. I was always told any language is fine.
[deleted]
Do you have a link to this research? This is amazing.
Sadly not. We ran the study on internal company data, so it was never published. The purpose of the study was to improve and inform on our hiring practices
There are a few outliers, but generally, I found most candidates hired are good, if the interview process mimics the actual projects someone is going to work on in the next 3 months or so. But the downside is that interviewing is slow and cannot easily distributed across multiple teams, because the tasks are tailor made.
Due to the downsides, I guess it is easier for companies to rely on standardised tests. Even just for the reason that those are easy for anyone in the company to lead the interview. But likewise it is easy for anyone to game the system.
Due to the downsides, I guess it is easier for companies to rely on standardised tests. Even just for the reason that those are easy for anyone in the company to lead the interview. But likewise it is easy for anyone to game the system.
Or they were good predictors of success, just not in the way you expected. The individuals got the job done one way or another, just like they nailed the entry level job position.
How would you base a job interview on actual work? You have very limited time and you're trying to take a representative sample of a candidate's capabilities.
IMO interviewing is just plain hard and unpleasant. Obviously if you perfectly solve interviewing for software engineers you could rule the world, because you could afford to offer all of your hires $1M/yr which is far less than the best engineers are worth, but more than what everyone else offers.
How would you base a job interview on actual work? You have very limited time and you're trying to take a representative sample of a candidate's capabilities.
IMO interviewing is just plain hard and unpleasant. Obviously if you perfectly solve interviewing for software engineers you could rule the world, because you could afford to offer all of your hires $1M/yr which is far less than the best engineers are worth, but more than what everyone else offers.
It is funny. Let’s say you have an MIT PHD computer science grad with a 4.0 GPA. The 8 years of verifiable performance means nothing. The competitive coder would blow them away in an interview.
A PhD is intended to set you up for an R&D type job. It depends on what kind of education the competitive coder has of course, but if they are interviewing for the same types of positions, the scientists isn’t exploiting their competitive advantage.
Yes, because the entire reason competition code was adopted in the first place is people graduating with prestigious titles that could not write code.
Fizz buzz gets ‘em every time. The competition code stuff was more of a culture test. It’s gotten weird now because people outside that culture now memorize problems to get higher-paying jobs.
That is possible but the irony must be apparent.
It is tangentially related to cheating and interview, but if my first internship in the field told me anything, it's that your ability to sell yourself is often more important than your actual ability. My internship manager was a dev with a lot of experience and he was the one doing 90% of the job, but he was not very good when it came to communication toward the higher ups. His co-worker on the other hand was the exact opposite: Not a very good dev, but a very skillful sweet talker. Guess who got raised more ?
Anecdotally, I have seen this with my friends and co-worker from school. The one who were good at marketing themselves often went further faster in hierarchy than the skillful ones who had trouble marketing themselves.
Anecdotally, I have seen this with my friends and co-worker from school. The one who were good at marketing themselves often went further faster in hierarchy than the skillful ones who had trouble marketing themselves.
We all know that interviews can focus on knowledge not applicable to the job, leading to candidates excelling in interviews but failing at their job, or vice versa.
I don't hold a firm ethical view on whether this justifies cheating in interviews. However, as noted on Blind, people do succeed in their roles after cheating. Some could even make the argument that those who deliver business value fulfil the primary expectation an employer has of them, and whatever happens at the interview might be almost irrelevant.
From my experience leading teams, people with gumption, perseverance, and great learning skills almost always outperform others long-term, making entry-level skills a worse indicator of future performance in comparison. I've never regretted hiring someone with these values.
When entering tech, I performed poorly on some technical interviews, which I'm ashamed of. Still, I received competitive offers based on potential. Some companies even skip technical panels/whiteboards for candidates with poor initial performance in technical tests but good growth potential. While unconventional and you should not expect that a company will do this for you, this approach seems more sensible than crazy to me.
I don't hold a firm ethical view on whether this justifies cheating in interviews. However, as noted on Blind, people do succeed in their roles after cheating. Some could even make the argument that those who deliver business value fulfil the primary expectation an employer has of them, and whatever happens at the interview might be almost irrelevant.
From my experience leading teams, people with gumption, perseverance, and great learning skills almost always outperform others long-term, making entry-level skills a worse indicator of future performance in comparison. I've never regretted hiring someone with these values.
When entering tech, I performed poorly on some technical interviews, which I'm ashamed of. Still, I received competitive offers based on potential. Some companies even skip technical panels/whiteboards for candidates with poor initial performance in technical tests but good growth potential. While unconventional and you should not expect that a company will do this for you, this approach seems more sensible than crazy to me.
euix(1)
Nobody seems to care anymore. I am reminded about this constantly at my work where I travel to lots of different offices and meet lots of managers. Nobody cares this author worked hard to be honest. Nobody cares that the other interviewees cheated. There's not much accountability. All anybody who has a say in anything seems to care is if they don't caught in a scandal. As long as it doesn't cause a scandal, mediocre work, dishonesty and/or neglect is widely acceptable in today's workforce.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and be “that guy”.
But in my experience, there’s a big difference between perspectives on cheating in the US vs perspectives in… let’s just say broadly… “some other nations”. I say this as an American who has lived overseas much of my life and, lest you think I’m just a flag waving parrot for the US, prob prefer living overseas and am more than willing to criticize the heck out of the US on a range of topics when relevant.
I prob shouldn’t be afraid of listing out these specific cultures where cheating is not just ok but encouraged- as these are things that come from multiple occasions of direct experience- but I’d rather not make this look like a racist judgement on certain cultures.
I’m not saying here that there aren’t Americans who cheat and I’d be lying if I said I had never cheated on an exam in undergrad. And there are certainly cultures outside of the US that on average are at least as intolerant of cheating or more so.
But I think the big difference between that and a lot of the opinions I’ve seen in comments here and in the article is that- at least in my case- these were slipups done in moments of desperation and I damn sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a message board and am overall somewhat ashamed at having done it.
Feel free to downvote me or call me a moron…
But in my experience, there’s a big difference between perspectives on cheating in the US vs perspectives in… let’s just say broadly… “some other nations”. I say this as an American who has lived overseas much of my life and, lest you think I’m just a flag waving parrot for the US, prob prefer living overseas and am more than willing to criticize the heck out of the US on a range of topics when relevant.
I prob shouldn’t be afraid of listing out these specific cultures where cheating is not just ok but encouraged- as these are things that come from multiple occasions of direct experience- but I’d rather not make this look like a racist judgement on certain cultures.
I’m not saying here that there aren’t Americans who cheat and I’d be lying if I said I had never cheated on an exam in undergrad. And there are certainly cultures outside of the US that on average are at least as intolerant of cheating or more so.
But I think the big difference between that and a lot of the opinions I’ve seen in comments here and in the article is that- at least in my case- these were slipups done in moments of desperation and I damn sure wouldn’t be bragging about it on a message board and am overall somewhat ashamed at having done it.
Feel free to downvote me or call me a moron…
Yes, it is sometimes a cultural thing.
In some countries, cheating/gaming the system is seen as a noble thing. It is seen as a big "fuck you" to the system / the man / whatever. If you get away with it, it is not you who are wrong - it is simply the system that is too poorly designed.
In other countries, cheating is just too normalized because the stakes are so high, and the competition is too great. I'm just going to throw out India and China - not because everyone there cheats, but because every "edge" you can gain against your competition is fair game. The reward is not only life changing for you, but for your whole family. Maybe even your neighbors.
And it is not to say that they would cheat each other directly, like scamming money off the other guy - but if you're the competition, then the gloves are off.
In some countries, cheating/gaming the system is seen as a noble thing. It is seen as a big "fuck you" to the system / the man / whatever. If you get away with it, it is not you who are wrong - it is simply the system that is too poorly designed.
In other countries, cheating is just too normalized because the stakes are so high, and the competition is too great. I'm just going to throw out India and China - not because everyone there cheats, but because every "edge" you can gain against your competition is fair game. The reward is not only life changing for you, but for your whole family. Maybe even your neighbors.
And it is not to say that they would cheat each other directly, like scamming money off the other guy - but if you're the competition, then the gloves are off.
> there’s a big difference between perspectives
Here's my take...
The difference between the United States and other countries is how we internalize things. We're very much guilt or shame driven because of the heavy influences of puritanical, fundamentalist, and catholic religions.
It's not that Americans don't cheat/indulge/whatever, it's that they feel bad about doing it. And that doesn't stop Americans from doing things, they just try to hide or repent for what they've done.
* Thinking about it a little more, there are also people here with a strong sense of entitlement and bewildering moral fortitude. They'll break down in tears or want to start a fight if you cuss in their presence but have no qualms about "moving" to Florida to dodge paying taxes or vehicle registration fees.
Here's my take...
The difference between the United States and other countries is how we internalize things. We're very much guilt or shame driven because of the heavy influences of puritanical, fundamentalist, and catholic religions.
It's not that Americans don't cheat/indulge/whatever, it's that they feel bad about doing it. And that doesn't stop Americans from doing things, they just try to hide or repent for what they've done.
* Thinking about it a little more, there are also people here with a strong sense of entitlement and bewildering moral fortitude. They'll break down in tears or want to start a fight if you cuss in their presence but have no qualms about "moving" to Florida to dodge paying taxes or vehicle registration fees.
Agree that the US can be pretty puritanical, so some of the aversion to cheating is driven by guilt/shame. But on the other hand, when you grow up without the necessity to lie/cheat, and when it isn't normalized, you never learn the methods to get away with it, and sometimes that's enough of a deterrent.
There are things in my life I'd rather lie about, but I don't because I never learned to lie convincingly. The same with cheating. Figuring out how to cheat on a test/interview sounds like a way more effortful and stressful experience than acting honestly (I shudder to imagine how it compounds imposter syndrome).
Imo "moving" to Florida (and similar tactics) got normalized, so it's easier for people to learn how to do it from a friend etc. so they do it more. No moralizing necessary.
There are things in my life I'd rather lie about, but I don't because I never learned to lie convincingly. The same with cheating. Figuring out how to cheat on a test/interview sounds like a way more effortful and stressful experience than acting honestly (I shudder to imagine how it compounds imposter syndrome).
Imo "moving" to Florida (and similar tactics) got normalized, so it's easier for people to learn how to do it from a friend etc. so they do it more. No moralizing necessary.
> Figuring out how to cheat on a test/interview sounds like a way more effortful and stressful experience than acting honestly
That's easier said than done when the market is expecting unrealistic job experience, requiring coding tests of knowledge that won't be leverages for the job, and asking candidates to participate in ridiculous interview processes.
For someone with an established resume it's manageable but for candidates fresh out of school without much work experience they're faced with a hostile hiring process.
It's reasonable to understand that they would feel the need to cheat to even get a foot in the door.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hirings-new-red-line-why-newc...
That's easier said than done when the market is expecting unrealistic job experience, requiring coding tests of knowledge that won't be leverages for the job, and asking candidates to participate in ridiculous interview processes.
For someone with an established resume it's manageable but for candidates fresh out of school without much work experience they're faced with a hostile hiring process.
It's reasonable to understand that they would feel the need to cheat to even get a foot in the door.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hirings-new-red-line-why-newc...
In my country, India, cheating in university is rampant. But there were more than a few of my classmates, who didn't. On average, it sad to see all that cheating. Aren't you saying you are incompetent by cheating?
Yup. Pretty much.
Or you don’t believe this material/test will affect your future.
Or you don’t believe this material/test will affect your future.
>Feel free to downvote me or call me a moron…
You are actually being very astute. One of the reasons (there are of course more reasons) that America does so well is that most common citizens are relatively honest. Consequently in many third world countries corruption is rife, not only is it tolerated it is often encouraged.
You are actually being very astute. One of the reasons (there are of course more reasons) that America does so well is that most common citizens are relatively honest. Consequently in many third world countries corruption is rife, not only is it tolerated it is often encouraged.
It's the elephant in the room and it has small ears.
My Russian friend frequently mentions that bribery and cheating is a national sport over there. If you want to get anything done that is. I am sure countries where it is prevalent know so.
No, I've had acquaintances who believed cheating made them smarter than non-cheaters
In a sense, I'm in that category because I paid for zero textbooks. Instead I photocopied them at the library.
I imagine if I had to I would have probably paid for them. By the laws of the land I'm a cheater. And so be it.
I imagine if I had to I would have probably paid for them. By the laws of the land I'm a cheater. And so be it.
Nah that's not cheating, that's piracy, I did the same thing as a broke college kid - copying is not theft. Information wants to be free.
Savvier or more cunning—yeah, probably so.
I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this, but this is completely unsurprising to me. When I was in college, folks from India and other low trust societies would mercilessly cheat on their projects and exams, blatantly helping one another on individual works, and the college knew about it and didn't care. When I had brought this up at one point, I was told by a professor that it was a cultural difference that had to be respected and that it wouldn't matter anyway because in the workforce I'd excel and they would not, so why did I care? After entering the workforce I encountered many many resumes, especially from contract houses / body shops, that were obviously lies, and have interviewed thousands of candidates across my career that clearly lied on their resume.
My basic take is that low trust societies encourage cheating and dishonesty and think if you're honest and honorable that you're a naive rube asking to be taken advantage of. For my part, I've never cheated in any interview, in anything at school, and never lied on my resume, yet being in tech which is dominated by people who originate in low trust societies, I see how it becomes something insidious that creates extremely negative behavioral norms in corporate politics, where it's now acceptable for people to bald-face lie about project status, receipt of information, or the severity of an issue if it gets them ahead or makes someone else look bad and deflects the blame.
Luckily, my professor was right though, despite exposure to a lot of negative behaviors I don't like, don't respect, and don't endorse, I did excel and I continue to excel above my peers, especially those who cheated. Cheating ultimately cheats oneself, but it's very galling that it's now becoming accepted as okay behavior in American society due to cultural shifts aligned to low trust societies we do business with. The Blind app demographics make it unsurprising to see this there or that it's essentially universally supported in the comments there. I am honestly unsurprised that most of the comments on HN support it. There's absolutely an attitude of "lie now, and figure out how to make it not a lie before investors or customers notice" in the startup world as well. Frankly, it disappoints me deeply that so much our society has become one big grift, especially as someone who entered the tech industry when it was still dominated by honest nerds doing cool stuff.
My basic take is that low trust societies encourage cheating and dishonesty and think if you're honest and honorable that you're a naive rube asking to be taken advantage of. For my part, I've never cheated in any interview, in anything at school, and never lied on my resume, yet being in tech which is dominated by people who originate in low trust societies, I see how it becomes something insidious that creates extremely negative behavioral norms in corporate politics, where it's now acceptable for people to bald-face lie about project status, receipt of information, or the severity of an issue if it gets them ahead or makes someone else look bad and deflects the blame.
Luckily, my professor was right though, despite exposure to a lot of negative behaviors I don't like, don't respect, and don't endorse, I did excel and I continue to excel above my peers, especially those who cheated. Cheating ultimately cheats oneself, but it's very galling that it's now becoming accepted as okay behavior in American society due to cultural shifts aligned to low trust societies we do business with. The Blind app demographics make it unsurprising to see this there or that it's essentially universally supported in the comments there. I am honestly unsurprised that most of the comments on HN support it. There's absolutely an attitude of "lie now, and figure out how to make it not a lie before investors or customers notice" in the startup world as well. Frankly, it disappoints me deeply that so much our society has become one big grift, especially as someone who entered the tech industry when it was still dominated by honest nerds doing cool stuff.
I had a fantastic thermodynamics instructor in undergrad school. He was from a rough part of a city in Iran. At the beginning of the course, he told us his policy on cheating, which was zero tolerance. He added that he had seen every kind of cheating and dishonesty in his neighborhood growing up and there was no way anyone in that class would get away with anything because he had seen it all. It was a great course.
At any rate, being from a "low trust society" can also motivate someone to go in the other direction because they have seen the injustice that is a consequence of cheating and dishonesty.
At any rate, being from a "low trust society" can also motivate someone to go in the other direction because they have seen the injustice that is a consequence of cheating and dishonesty.
This. Low-trust countries generate an outflow of people in the direction of first-world countries. This is an incredible talent-pool of disciplined and motivated idealists and a lot of the technological IP that gives an upper hand to Western economies comes from this process.
Personally, my parents are such people - they left Poland in the 1970’s and excelled in America. One of the best things that our country has done since is that we have climbed into a higher-trust category in the 90’s. This has gradually limited that brain drain mechanic. While things aren’t perfect, there are far fewer such people leaving our economy and it has done wonders.
However, everywhere in the world this is a continuous battle that will always have to be fought and won over and over again. The lying and the cheating always creeps back into every system.
Personally, my parents are such people - they left Poland in the 1970’s and excelled in America. One of the best things that our country has done since is that we have climbed into a higher-trust category in the 90’s. This has gradually limited that brain drain mechanic. While things aren’t perfect, there are far fewer such people leaving our economy and it has done wonders.
However, everywhere in the world this is a continuous battle that will always have to be fought and won over and over again. The lying and the cheating always creeps back into every system.
I don't know where are you from, but there's a difference between wanting to be different by leaving your community and going to another place, and trying to be different from your social circle yet staying there.
If he stayed, he wouldn't have been as successful as he is now.
If he stayed, he wouldn't have been as successful as he is now.
I am from India, and I just recently completed my Masters from a US university. I have never cheated in my life when it comes to interviews, exams, or assignments; not once. I am worried that calling us “low-trust” because of your experience with a few students might lead others to think that the entire country that is so diverse and large is comprised of just an incompetent set of cheaters. I agree that a lot of students cheat, but that's true of students from other countries(like US, Uk, etc) as well. I know this from my experience as a TA. I love computer science and so do many of my friends.
Edit: I should also add that I realize by low-trust OP meant the academic term for kinship-based society but my worry is that tying low-trust with cheating students from a country that gets its image tarnished because of various other reasons like low-wage labour and tech scams might paint a different picture to those who don’t know about the term or OPs intent
Edit: I should also add that I realize by low-trust OP meant the academic term for kinship-based society but my worry is that tying low-trust with cheating students from a country that gets its image tarnished because of various other reasons like low-wage labour and tech scams might paint a different picture to those who don’t know about the term or OPs intent
I came to US from India in 1996. During my college years, at a state school in CA, 80% of the student in CS courses were from India. Almost all of the boys from India cheated on exams because professor would generally leave the classroom. Grading was done on curve so those of us who didn't cheat had bad grades to show for :-)
India has been a low-trust society for a long long time and remains so. Every Indian I know would admit this in private. Back in 90's there was an Indian grocery store in Fremont, CA owned by a Gujarati gentleman. He had a poster on the wall that offended many of his countrymen. It said, "100 mein sey 90 beyimaan, fir bhi mera Bharat Mahan!". Roughly translated it says 90 of 100 Indians cheat but still my India the great.
India has been a low-trust society for a long long time and remains so. Every Indian I know would admit this in private. Back in 90's there was an Indian grocery store in Fremont, CA owned by a Gujarati gentleman. He had a poster on the wall that offended many of his countrymen. It said, "100 mein sey 90 beyimaan, fir bhi mera Bharat Mahan!". Roughly translated it says 90 of 100 Indians cheat but still my India the great.
Not OP, but to be clear, "low trust society" has a specific sociological meaning relating to interpersonal trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_socie...
It doesn't mean that individuals from that society are less trustworthy.
It doesn't mean that individuals from that society are less trustworthy.
I realized that’s what they meant but I was worried that tying low-trust with cheating students from a country that has a tarnished image because of tech scams and low-wage tech workers might paint a different picture to those who don’t know about the term or OPs intent.
Fair, thanks for the clarification.
I find it odd this article doesn't provide any examples of low and high trust societies.
What about using the corruption index and equating it to the trust level?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Caveat:
> The Index only measures public sector corruption, ignoring the private sector.
> The Index only measures public sector corruption, ignoring the private sector.
It isn’t defined that way, but yes it is strong evidence that people from that society are less trustworthy. People are less trusting when others are more likely to cheat them.
"Strong evidence" = your feelings?
well you tell me, who is defrauding them causing them to trust others less? Are you going to find a way to blame White people for how Indians treat each other?
Like all observations, they are reflective only of the individuals observed, even if a pattern emerges. 17% of all people in the world are Indian, India alone has 1.4B people, and that doesn't even count the hundreds of millions of Indians in the diaspora around the world. Nothing you could possibly say about Indians is true for every person in that group, because the group is so large that it necessarily includes every possible facet of humanity, good, bad, or otherwise.
I say all that to say, that I stand by the truth of my observations, but I do not intend for those observations to in any way imply that it would be acceptable to discriminate against people from India, or anywhere else, on the basis of their origin or ethnicity. I do not discriminate in this manner, as it is just as ethically reprehensible, incorrect, and dishonorable as the behavior I was pointing out in my original comment. I have worked with many Indian colleagues throughout my career that were excellent engineers, managers, and otherwise decent people.
Just to clearly state it, I do not in any way think that any individual person I meet from India is any more likely to cheat or otherwise be dishonest than any individual person I meet from anywhere else. India is far from the only low-trust society in the world, and in general most of the countries in the world qualify as low-trust societies. These are academic terms, and it is entirely expected that there is a higher variance in behavior for individuals in low-trust societies versus high-trust societies, so if anything honestly referring to India as a low-trust society implies within it that there is a higher variance of individual behavior and it's even less accurate to generalize about the behavior of Indian people.
I would be happy to work with anyone who loves computer science and embraces the cool things that we can do with technology to reshape the world and improve the human condition, no matter where they originate from.
I say all that to say, that I stand by the truth of my observations, but I do not intend for those observations to in any way imply that it would be acceptable to discriminate against people from India, or anywhere else, on the basis of their origin or ethnicity. I do not discriminate in this manner, as it is just as ethically reprehensible, incorrect, and dishonorable as the behavior I was pointing out in my original comment. I have worked with many Indian colleagues throughout my career that were excellent engineers, managers, and otherwise decent people.
Just to clearly state it, I do not in any way think that any individual person I meet from India is any more likely to cheat or otherwise be dishonest than any individual person I meet from anywhere else. India is far from the only low-trust society in the world, and in general most of the countries in the world qualify as low-trust societies. These are academic terms, and it is entirely expected that there is a higher variance in behavior for individuals in low-trust societies versus high-trust societies, so if anything honestly referring to India as a low-trust society implies within it that there is a higher variance of individual behavior and it's even less accurate to generalize about the behavior of Indian people.
I would be happy to work with anyone who loves computer science and embraces the cool things that we can do with technology to reshape the world and improve the human condition, no matter where they originate from.
[flagged]
> It doesn't invalidate the easily observable phenomenon of widespread cheating in low trust society like India.
Agreed. I am very carefully saying that I stand by my own observations as well. The point is that, while these behaviors may be commonplace in a particular society, it does not mean any given individual person from that society engages in these behaviors. We should always be careful of the heuristics we apply to people and work to treat every individual as an individual.
Not being careful here can actually create a form of category error. It's similar to the expectations of visitors to the US that everyone is walking around openly carrying guns and shooting each other constantly due to what's in the news or the statistical probability of a shooting occurring compared to other countries in the world. If you have a 4x higher chance of being involved in a shooting per capita in the US vs a random Western European country, both numbers could be minuscule chances (and are). Just because this type of dishonest behavior is more commonplace in low trust societies, and in this case in India in particular, the population is so large that it still represents a small fraction of the total number of people and you have to be careful not to indict everyone within the society on the basis of the behavior of a few. 15% of the Indian population would be the same as half or more of the US population, but there's a very big difference in categorization between something that is the behavior of a minority of a population vs half or more of the population.
That's all I'm saying. Treat individuals as individuals.
Agreed. I am very carefully saying that I stand by my own observations as well. The point is that, while these behaviors may be commonplace in a particular society, it does not mean any given individual person from that society engages in these behaviors. We should always be careful of the heuristics we apply to people and work to treat every individual as an individual.
Not being careful here can actually create a form of category error. It's similar to the expectations of visitors to the US that everyone is walking around openly carrying guns and shooting each other constantly due to what's in the news or the statistical probability of a shooting occurring compared to other countries in the world. If you have a 4x higher chance of being involved in a shooting per capita in the US vs a random Western European country, both numbers could be minuscule chances (and are). Just because this type of dishonest behavior is more commonplace in low trust societies, and in this case in India in particular, the population is so large that it still represents a small fraction of the total number of people and you have to be careful not to indict everyone within the society on the basis of the behavior of a few. 15% of the Indian population would be the same as half or more of the US population, but there's a very big difference in categorization between something that is the behavior of a minority of a population vs half or more of the population.
That's all I'm saying. Treat individuals as individuals.
> That's all I'm saying. Treat individuals as individuals.
Except we're not talking about individuals here, but social phenomenons.
Except we're not talking about individuals here, but social phenomenons.
[deleted]
I graduated with my Bachelors about a decade ago and recently went back to school for my Masters. I work full time and attend school part-time.
I was shocked when I went back and started to work alongside many of the students in group projects. About 3/4 of the class were from India or Nepal. When I would meet up for group projects on Comp Sci security labs, I was shocked that everyone's instinct when we would start was to immediately google or use Chegg to find the lab done by other students and essentially copy it. I got frustrated because many of the times, my group would resort to cheating before even understanding what the lab wanted us to do, it was instinctual.
I didn't see this in the few groups I had with other American-born citizens. I feel guilty to even suggest a difference like this and I am conscious of cultural bias, but it was impossible to ignore the dichotomy between these groups.
Up to this point i have chalked the difference to an age gap. Many of my classmates are young and have zero work experience yet. They want their degree as a piece of paper to get a job. By contrast I already have a high-ranking and high-paying position and extensive resume. I am not looking to use my Masters as a rite of passage, but I truly want to go back to school to deepen my knowledge academically at some scientific concepts that you won't find in YouTube videos or through personal study. I am there to learn, not just pass a class. So when given these labs, I see them as opportunities to learn something to apply in my current career and my teammates just want to get it done so they can get a job. But this doesn't explain why the American-born teammates who were also young were willing to learn and not resort instantly to cheating, so it likely is deeply cultural.
I was shocked when I went back and started to work alongside many of the students in group projects. About 3/4 of the class were from India or Nepal. When I would meet up for group projects on Comp Sci security labs, I was shocked that everyone's instinct when we would start was to immediately google or use Chegg to find the lab done by other students and essentially copy it. I got frustrated because many of the times, my group would resort to cheating before even understanding what the lab wanted us to do, it was instinctual.
I didn't see this in the few groups I had with other American-born citizens. I feel guilty to even suggest a difference like this and I am conscious of cultural bias, but it was impossible to ignore the dichotomy between these groups.
Up to this point i have chalked the difference to an age gap. Many of my classmates are young and have zero work experience yet. They want their degree as a piece of paper to get a job. By contrast I already have a high-ranking and high-paying position and extensive resume. I am not looking to use my Masters as a rite of passage, but I truly want to go back to school to deepen my knowledge academically at some scientific concepts that you won't find in YouTube videos or through personal study. I am there to learn, not just pass a class. So when given these labs, I see them as opportunities to learn something to apply in my current career and my teammates just want to get it done so they can get a job. But this doesn't explain why the American-born teammates who were also young were willing to learn and not resort instantly to cheating, so it likely is deeply cultural.
I read his complaint as more one of societal reinforcing of certain behaviours. Certainly cheating exists in all societies, but if it is considered acceptable or necessary as a reaction to others, it's going to be a problem.
I looked up where Indians feel about trust here: https://ourworldindata.org/trust
Indians self-rank at 17% - the US at 40%, Canadians at 50%.
I looked up where Indians feel about trust here: https://ourworldindata.org/trust
Indians self-rank at 17% - the US at 40%, Canadians at 50%.
My spouse works in a large multinational non-profit. India is one of the countries they will not partner with very often, due to the massive amount of, shall we say, unexplained cost inefficiencies (lost money) that happens. One of her Indian coworkers explained that the culture is just like that, for better or worse, it's a hustle culture. And once you get someone to buy, it seems it's expected to use that as resources for the next hustle.
Sounds a lot like academia, to be honest.
Sounds a lot like academia, to be honest.
I'm glad you've never cheated, and hope this becomes more common in the future.
But you're fighting an uphill battle to expect people not to possess prejudices based on what is statistically likely. People will believe the evidence of their eyes.
The most you can hope is that people not act on their prejudices before getting to know you. And, as unfair as it is that you can't change it, you'll have to find ways to live with the reality that there are people who will act on their prejudices before they get to know you and know that you're really different.
But you're fighting an uphill battle to expect people not to possess prejudices based on what is statistically likely. People will believe the evidence of their eyes.
The most you can hope is that people not act on their prejudices before getting to know you. And, as unfair as it is that you can't change it, you'll have to find ways to live with the reality that there are people who will act on their prejudices before they get to know you and know that you're really different.
Can’t believe I have to state this explicitly, but I am on Hacker News, after all-- scraping the bottom of the barrel here.
It is absolutely reasonable to ask people to reconsider their prejudices. Your line of thought does nothing but reinforce people’s existing biases without leaving room for the nuance of social context. Racists misuse statistics all the time to justify their awfulness. Consider whether you’re really different from any of those people. Or do I just need to get to know you more?
It is absolutely reasonable to ask people to reconsider their prejudices. Your line of thought does nothing but reinforce people’s existing biases without leaving room for the nuance of social context. Racists misuse statistics all the time to justify their awfulness. Consider whether you’re really different from any of those people. Or do I just need to get to know you more?
I'll stick up for btilly here - I don't think you've read his comment fairly, and instead are criticizing something he didn't say. He didn't say, or imply, that people shouldn't be asked to reconsider their prejudices. Of course they (or we, rather) should.
This is covered by the HN guidelines, which ask: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I could imagine a criticism of btilly's post on the basis that it didn't really meet the GP's experience, didn't show empathy (though I think he was trying to be helpful, not mean), and didn't contribute anything positive, just "you'll have to find ways to deal with it". A better comment might have been more constructive and less coldly generic. But those aren't the criticisms you've offered.
Instead, you crossed into personal attack and snark with your last two sentences. Those things are definitely against the rules here, so please don't do them. It's always possible to make your substantive points without that, and you're of course welcome to do that instead.
No matter how low in the barrel HN is or you feel it is, there's always room to sink lower! That's why we have guidelines—to try to stave off further sinking. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and posting in the intended spirit, we'd appreciate it.
This is covered by the HN guidelines, which ask: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I could imagine a criticism of btilly's post on the basis that it didn't really meet the GP's experience, didn't show empathy (though I think he was trying to be helpful, not mean), and didn't contribute anything positive, just "you'll have to find ways to deal with it". A better comment might have been more constructive and less coldly generic. But those aren't the criticisms you've offered.
Instead, you crossed into personal attack and snark with your last two sentences. Those things are definitely against the rules here, so please don't do them. It's always possible to make your substantive points without that, and you're of course welcome to do that instead.
No matter how low in the barrel HN is or you feel it is, there's always room to sink lower! That's why we have guidelines—to try to stave off further sinking. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and posting in the intended spirit, we'd appreciate it.
Sure, I agree that I could have been nicer. On the other hand, I have very few spoons for responding politely to people who retort to others’ requests to not be judged on the basis of their race with, effectively, “suck it up”. It’s difficult for me to consider that an attempt at helpfulness, though it’s possible that someone without personal exposure to these issues could mistakenly think otherwise. It causes a lot more damage than some snark on my part, imo.
In any case, thanks for taking the time to offer a more charitable perspective on the comment I responded to.
In any case, thanks for taking the time to offer a more charitable perspective on the comment I responded to.
...though it’s possible that someone without personal exposure to these issues could mistakenly think otherwise.
Please do not mistake differing opinions for ignorance.
My father grew up in a time and place where they were persecuted by the KKK for being Irish. I have a half-brother on that side who lives on a native reservation. My half-sisters on the other side were half-Chinese at a time when public opinion absolutely condemned interracial marriage. I have close friends from many different cultures, who have arrived in a wide variety of difference circumstances. Including my wife, who was a refugee from the Soviet Union.
All this has taught me that the more real the problems that you face, the MORE important it becomes to focus on that which remains within your control, while trying to shrug off that which isn't. You'd absolutely be in the right to go around being upset at the world for being unfair to you. But your justified outrage amplifies your problems, and makes your life worse.
The positions that you put down as "suck it up" are therefore the best advice that I know of to improve things. To the extent that individuals and groups do that, they make their lives better. Both in the short term, and the long term. I have seen the truth of this, both for my family and for my friends.
I hold this position based on experience, not ignorance.
If it still sounds crazy, I highly recommend reading https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv.... In particular for its "backwards law". Which says that trying to hold on to a good thing is a bad experience, and accepting a bad thing is a good one. Nobody wants the bad thing to be true. But if the bad thing is true, the act of consciously recognizing and accepting it is far better than the alternative. (The rest of the book is full of other good advice that flies in the face of common preconceptions.)
Please do not mistake differing opinions for ignorance.
My father grew up in a time and place where they were persecuted by the KKK for being Irish. I have a half-brother on that side who lives on a native reservation. My half-sisters on the other side were half-Chinese at a time when public opinion absolutely condemned interracial marriage. I have close friends from many different cultures, who have arrived in a wide variety of difference circumstances. Including my wife, who was a refugee from the Soviet Union.
All this has taught me that the more real the problems that you face, the MORE important it becomes to focus on that which remains within your control, while trying to shrug off that which isn't. You'd absolutely be in the right to go around being upset at the world for being unfair to you. But your justified outrage amplifies your problems, and makes your life worse.
The positions that you put down as "suck it up" are therefore the best advice that I know of to improve things. To the extent that individuals and groups do that, they make their lives better. Both in the short term, and the long term. I have seen the truth of this, both for my family and for my friends.
I hold this position based on experience, not ignorance.
If it still sounds crazy, I highly recommend reading https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv.... In particular for its "backwards law". Which says that trying to hold on to a good thing is a bad experience, and accepting a bad thing is a good one. Nobody wants the bad thing to be true. But if the bad thing is true, the act of consciously recognizing and accepting it is far better than the alternative. (The rest of the book is full of other good advice that flies in the face of common preconceptions.)
Not sure how but after reading your response, I've got a "knight and knave" logic puzzle running through my mind....
I was happy to see this comment but expected to see it much higher up. "low-trust" is obviously an established term but it's really giving me a bad feeling here. These are enormously diverse cultures and we only see a very specific filtered set of demographics that end up in the US / West.
This is why I enjoy both woodworking and code golfing. There's an inescapable objective success or failure indicator that no amount of posturing can overcome.
Either the code is short, or it isn't.
Either the chair supports your weight, or it breaks.
I think I enjoy these pursuits as an antidote to the kind of software I have to deal with on a daily basis - it's the kind that is so complex there are "no obvious deficiencies", so being able to retreat to domains where there are "obviously no deficiencies" is a treat.
Either the code is short, or it isn't.
Either the chair supports your weight, or it breaks.
I think I enjoy these pursuits as an antidote to the kind of software I have to deal with on a daily basis - it's the kind that is so complex there are "no obvious deficiencies", so being able to retreat to domains where there are "obviously no deficiencies" is a treat.
Yup. I've gravitated towards difficult domains in my career because they serve as a very effective filter on the people actually applying for them, they keep me sharp, and people that have needs in these areas tend to less of the stereotypical "idea people," that are looking to milk those who can execute.
While what you say is true, my experience at such jobs is they also tend to have the most dysfunctional people/teams, unfortunately. And career growth tends to be very stagnant, and working conditions are poor (the supply of labor exceeds the demand).
Switching to "dumb" jobs made my life a lot happier. While it's easier, the demand exceeds the supply. Easier career growth, and better colleagues (no egos, etc).
Switching to "dumb" jobs made my life a lot happier. While it's easier, the demand exceeds the supply. Easier career growth, and better colleagues (no egos, etc).
You still need to be picky about teams. Where I am currently pays decently, has interesting work, and is small enough that there is meaningful progression, and is low drama. (We're hiring, check my profile for email if you like some of the stuff I mentioned above!)
So, my one example disputes your claim. :)
So, my one example disputes your claim. :)
Can you give any examples of those difficult domains?
I'm an ok-ish web developer, and would love to fine some niches to specialize in like you mentioned.
I'm an ok-ish web developer, and would love to fine some niches to specialize in like you mentioned.
* Deep systems programming (this one is losing its "hard" luster a bit with Rust, which I'm okay with)
* Compilers/DSLs/language runtimes/static analysis
* Distributed systems (on my list of things to learn, know basically nothing)
* More generically: high-performance code, doesn't have to be fintech-fast, but designing and maintaining code that makes excellent use of hardware resources
* Compilers/DSLs/language runtimes/static analysis
* Distributed systems (on my list of things to learn, know basically nothing)
* More generically: high-performance code, doesn't have to be fintech-fast, but designing and maintaining code that makes excellent use of hardware resources
> There's an inescapable objective success or failure indicator that no amount of posturing can overcome.
Because of this statement, I feel like I finally understand the aversion in the woodworking community to pocketholes and CNCs.
Because of this statement, I feel like I finally understand the aversion in the woodworking community to pocketholes and CNCs.
How so? If it's objective, and a CNC or pockethole based chair holds up, wouldn't it be accepted?
The point is that without pockethole jigs or CNC, certain "wood workers" couldn't build anything that actually held up.
Its not an aversion to the technique per se, its an aversion to the kind of person who uses them for everything.
Its not an aversion to the technique per se, its an aversion to the kind of person who uses them for everything.
>Either the chair supports your weight, or it breaks.
Well, it's very easy to make a chair that works a couple times. Whether it holds up for a week or a century is another matter.
Well, it's very easy to make a chair that works a couple times. Whether it holds up for a week or a century is another matter.
> When I was in college, folks from India and other low trust societies would mercilessly cheat on their projects and exams, blatantly helping one another on individual works, and the college knew about it and didn't care. When I had brought this up at one point, I was told by a professor that it was a cultural difference that had to be respected .
The reality (speaking from experience) may be that international students are a lucrative market and getting a reputation as being hard on cheating will make them choose to go elsewhere.
The reality (speaking from experience) may be that international students are a lucrative market and getting a reputation as being hard on cheating will make them choose to go elsewhere.
Yep, I know for a fact the higher ups tell (heavily imply to) the professors/lecturers to go easy on the undergrad international students with cheating and other behaviors at least in the smaller US colleges.
With the advent of AI and wearable IoT gadgets, the only way for schools to test out their students will be one one one filmed interviews that the students can give to future employers.
Oral exams are hard to cheat
guhidalg(2)
If you're wondering why international students are so lucrative, it is because the majority of them they pay full price for tuition. This is particularly noticeable at state colleges/universities because those institutions have to provide in-state residents a significant discount.
In my case, it was private, but international students wouldn't be offered as generous scholarships.
This just reminded me of a comment from my father from like 40 years ago. He was a civil engineer who designed waste water treatment plants when the US was funding it in the '70's (clean water act). Apparently there was some huge water treatment plant project in India at that time, and everyone he interviewed from that area said they had been in charge of the project.
> Cheating ultimately cheats oneself, but it's very galling that it's now becoming accepted as okay behavior in American society
Man, you crushed it here, so true.
Man, you crushed it here, so true.
I think you absolutely are cheating yourself if you cheat on something you're supposed to be learning. On the other hand, I have a tendency to be brutally honest about my own knowledge and capabilities, and it has bitten me multiple times.
I've gotten negative performance review feedback from management that was word for word from the 'things I think I can improve'. I've gotten passed over for jobs and promotions because I don't do a good enough job of 'selling' my experience.
Basically, the most successful software engineers I've met also have the ability to bullshit with the best used car salesmen, and it's hard to argue my unwillingness to do so hasn't held me back.
I've gotten negative performance review feedback from management that was word for word from the 'things I think I can improve'. I've gotten passed over for jobs and promotions because I don't do a good enough job of 'selling' my experience.
Basically, the most successful software engineers I've met also have the ability to bullshit with the best used car salesmen, and it's hard to argue my unwillingness to do so hasn't held me back.
>brutally honest about my own knowledge and capabilities
Is this a lack of confidence?
> I've gotten passed over for jobs and promotions because I don't do a good enough job of 'selling' my experience.
Selling your experience IS an important skill. Other factors may have played a part too.
> successful software engineers I've met also have the ability to bullshit
Is it their bullshit that gets them to be successful? Or is it that they're more friendly, tactful, and and positive?
To be clear, I don't doubt that you're telling it as you see it. I'm just wondering if your perceptions match the reality.
If someone is always talking about how bad they are at something, then I'll interpret that as the person being negative, lacking confidence, and pessimistic. That's not the kind of person I'd want to be around in general, let alone hire.
Is this a lack of confidence?
> I've gotten passed over for jobs and promotions because I don't do a good enough job of 'selling' my experience.
Selling your experience IS an important skill. Other factors may have played a part too.
> successful software engineers I've met also have the ability to bullshit
Is it their bullshit that gets them to be successful? Or is it that they're more friendly, tactful, and and positive?
To be clear, I don't doubt that you're telling it as you see it. I'm just wondering if your perceptions match the reality.
If someone is always talking about how bad they are at something, then I'll interpret that as the person being negative, lacking confidence, and pessimistic. That's not the kind of person I'd want to be around in general, let alone hire.
Maybe 'bullshitting' was too strong of a word.
I was always raised that you don't brag about yourself, you don't take credit for things you didn't really do, and you don't over promise and under deliver.
As I've gained experience, I've learned that people can take self deprecating things as gospel and as a worker it's your job to talk up your abilities and invitations to identify 'things you can improve' have to be spun in a positive way. As much as I hate to admit it, salesmanship, presentation, and ones ability to 'smooth talk' seems to get you further than raw technical ability. I don't hold it against devs that are able to do that, it's just been an adjustment for me.
I was always raised that you don't brag about yourself, you don't take credit for things you didn't really do, and you don't over promise and under deliver.
As I've gained experience, I've learned that people can take self deprecating things as gospel and as a worker it's your job to talk up your abilities and invitations to identify 'things you can improve' have to be spun in a positive way. As much as I hate to admit it, salesmanship, presentation, and ones ability to 'smooth talk' seems to get you further than raw technical ability. I don't hold it against devs that are able to do that, it's just been an adjustment for me.
Those who make the hiring/firing/promoting decisions rarely have the technical chops to determine which of the engineers is good and which isn't. So it's the engineers that are the most convincing that get the benefits, rather than the highest performers.
There are those who constantly put in overtime to put out fires that they created. To management, these seem like hard-working, dedicated folks. Meanwhile those who design things well, don't have fires to put out, and leave on-time every day seem lazy. All too often the first group is given praise instead of the second group.
This is a point of unfairness that is rampant in the industry. I don't know of any way to solve it, besides each person being their own promoter, hype man, sales man.
There are those who constantly put in overtime to put out fires that they created. To management, these seem like hard-working, dedicated folks. Meanwhile those who design things well, don't have fires to put out, and leave on-time every day seem lazy. All too often the first group is given praise instead of the second group.
This is a point of unfairness that is rampant in the industry. I don't know of any way to solve it, besides each person being their own promoter, hype man, sales man.
> If someone is always talking about how bad they are at something, then I'll interpret that as the person being negative, lacking confidence, and pessimistic. That's not the kind of person I'd want to be around in general, let alone hire.
Enjoy the circle of yes men.
Enjoy the circle of yes men.
There are many people outside of the two groups yes men and people always talking how bad they are at something.
If you disagree, tell me which of the two groups you are in?
If you disagree, tell me which of the two groups you are in?
That sounds more like bad management than anything you did. I'm the same way, I try to be honest about my own knowledge and abilities. I hope you don't change that because there are assholes out there, supportive managers definitely exist
The post-pandemic economic environment is toxic.
Everyone seems to have come out of the pandemic convinced that they need to tighten whatever screws they have to get theirs. And that triggers other people to do the same thing. Cheating enters the realm of possibility because people (correctly and incorrectly) believe others are doing the same thing.
It's gross and feeds on itself. I'm not sure what will help it get better.
Everyone seems to have come out of the pandemic convinced that they need to tighten whatever screws they have to get theirs. And that triggers other people to do the same thing. Cheating enters the realm of possibility because people (correctly and incorrectly) believe others are doing the same thing.
It's gross and feeds on itself. I'm not sure what will help it get better.
It's pretty simple. There are few incentives for integrity and few disincentives for lack thereof. This shows up in all kind of contexts - from business leaders, to social media "influencers", to athletes, to politicians.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect "the average Joe" to maintain some semblance of integrity when very few successful individuals do the same. The overall message is pretty clear - if you want to succeed, you will need to cheat.
I'm not sure why anyone would expect "the average Joe" to maintain some semblance of integrity when very few successful individuals do the same. The overall message is pretty clear - if you want to succeed, you will need to cheat.
People that don’t cheat much think that cheating is easy. Often times I see cheaters put in almost the same amount of effort as non cheaters the cheaters just get a higher probability of success.
But the long term success for cheating is actually much lower, those who actually learned things will do better in the long term even if they have a lower probability of short term success
Many humans seem to be incredibly short sighted
Many humans seem to be incredibly short sighted
> the long term success for cheating is actually much lower, those who actually learned things will do better in the long term even if they have a lower probability of short term success
I want to believe this, but I'm not sure it's always true. Timing of opportunities matters a lot. Someone who is not as skilled in programming probably cheated their way into a FAANG job during the height of the pandemic and made absolute bank, perhaps being able to sock away $200k-$300k since then. That money could then be invested and start compounding, leading to a materially different outcome from someone else who played it by the rules and was better.
The long-term for the cheater might be to simply find a less demanding job and continue riding the prestige hike they got when they snuck into the FAANG job.
I want to believe this, but I'm not sure it's always true. Timing of opportunities matters a lot. Someone who is not as skilled in programming probably cheated their way into a FAANG job during the height of the pandemic and made absolute bank, perhaps being able to sock away $200k-$300k since then. That money could then be invested and start compounding, leading to a materially different outcome from someone else who played it by the rules and was better.
The long-term for the cheater might be to simply find a less demanding job and continue riding the prestige hike they got when they snuck into the FAANG job.
The cheaters learn to cheat better that can be a better or equivalent level skill. Human lifetime are sort and human opportunity windows are even shorter. Not cheating put you at the mercy of variance as many now dead great people died in poverty
How about working to fix the system and make it more equitable rather than cheating or excusing cheating
I disagree, I don’t believe Trump and Elon musk are ethical and they are very successful in terms of power and money.
That said, Falcon 9 actually flies and is a very reliable rocket; SpaceX does not seem to be "cheating" in the classical sense of the word, but making money due to genuine innovative capability.
The success of those two are bad for the country long term, the idea that being super rich is success is also bad
When resources are perceived scarce, it tends to incentivize worse behavior.
"Fake it till you make it" has been a thing for a long time -- hence the catchy phrase.
When did this wonderful meritocracy exist? Where?
I think back to Jobs and Woz, and how he got him to hack a project to win a contest, and then didn't tell Woz and kept the money. It's been here since day 1.
When did this wonderful meritocracy exist? Where?
I think back to Jobs and Woz, and how he got him to hack a project to win a contest, and then didn't tell Woz and kept the money. It's been here since day 1.
Meritocracy doesn't exist for the poor. Before getting my job at The Atlantic through a random personal connection, I experienced job discrimination on the basis of not having graduated from a "prestigious" institution. Obviously this is coded language for being poor. To add insult to injury, I had actually aced a couple engineering courses that University of Michigan had provided to my high school class. You don't get to put that on your resume though. Even though I've always been honest to fault, I would never judge a poor person for skirting the rules of society. At the end of the day, if hiring managers can't tell whether candidates have fake credentials, all that does is prove that credentialism is not about merit.
Some things are different structurally. Eg about 50 years ago most kids grew up with both of their parents, today it’s about half.
Less adult time per child means a generation with far less formation.
It has to collapse before it gets better, but it will take centuries to get back to Rome levels of violence and back stabbing.
Less adult time per child means a generation with far less formation.
It has to collapse before it gets better, but it will take centuries to get back to Rome levels of violence and back stabbing.
Actually its over 70% of kids in USA grow up with two parents still. 50 years ago it was 85%, but that would have been with a lot of unhappy and abusive marriages that now with no-fault divorce are able to be dissolved.
Also child sexual and physical abuse has reduced during this same time frame. "According to David Finkelhor who tracked Child Maltreatment Report (NCANDS) data from 1990 to 2010, sexual abuse had declined 62% from 1992 to 2009 and the long-term trend for physical abuse was also down by 56% since 1992." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
We have a lot of problems, but your understand of the issues are poor.
Also child sexual and physical abuse has reduced during this same time frame. "According to David Finkelhor who tracked Child Maltreatment Report (NCANDS) data from 1990 to 2010, sexual abuse had declined 62% from 1992 to 2009 and the long-term trend for physical abuse was also down by 56% since 1992." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
We have a lot of problems, but your understand of the issues are poor.
It’s closer to 60% if we limit biological parents: That’s only to note that step parents are significantly more likely to abuse, so the way this plays out is complicated.
https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publications/violence-against-chil....
Twice as many children are raised by single mothers today compared to 50 years ago. Maybe that’s the more relevant statistic? (Yes there are hero stories where one could argue this doesn’t matter…)
Twice as many children are raised by single mothers today compared to 50 years ago. Maybe that’s the more relevant statistic? (Yes there are hero stories where one could argue this doesn’t matter…)
What's the relationship between abusive marriages and no-fault divorce? Won't abusive people be the easiest to divorce with fault?
Abusers are at their most dangerous when you try to leave them. They will be even more dangerous if you have to damage their public reputation with the ugly truth to try to escape.
No fault divorce makes it vastly easier to divorce for a lot of reasons and making it unnecessarily hard to leave can foster situations where it becomes abusive because they don't get along that well and can't just up and leave because they want to.
No fault divorce makes it vastly easier to divorce for a lot of reasons and making it unnecessarily hard to leave can foster situations where it becomes abusive because they don't get along that well and can't just up and leave because they want to.
Understood, but in this context of parenting and looming child support, would that not present an equally difficult situation?
That's theory. In reality abused women may choose not to attempt to divorce (or even leave) their abusive husband since they fear retaliation.
How is that relevant? Why would no-fault divorce help that situation?
Fault divorce is more expensive and requires burden of proof.
Abuse isn't always reported, and abusers often manipulate or lie.
Abuse isn't always reported, and abusers often manipulate or lie.
How I can be a good example to my child is what I’m most worried about. I’m not even convinced myself that having the highest levels of integrity is beneficial in current society, let alone when they’re of age.
The guy that’s getting payed more than you because he cheated into a higher paying position is happy to have you believe that.
> Luckily, my professor was right though, despite exposure to a lot of negative behaviors I don't like, don't respect, and don't endorse, I did excel and I continue to excel above my peers, especially those who cheated.
Disagree from my experience.
When I was a TA in grad school, I had a PhD student who clearly had access to the instructor's solution manual. His answers were copied verbatim. If the solution's manual had an error, so did his answer. If the professor assigned a problem not from the book, he wouldn't answer it. I debated reporting him to the professor, but didn't want the drama and figured what your professor did: He'll do poorly on the exams (I was right), and poorly in the work place.
He got his PhD, got a fairly senior position, and quickly rose to be the director of a well known company's research division.
He probably was smart - he did get the PhD from a top ranked university. But I strongly suspect he gamed the system at his company just as he gamed the system there.
In grad school, I had a close friend. Clearly a very bright, skilled guy. Was kicked out of the PhD program when it was discovered he had been fabricating data (Nature was right about to publish his paper when he got discovered).
He went off to another top ranked university and got his PhD in the same area. I don't know how/why he had the balls to do it, as surely his former advisor would be in close proximity (conferences, etc) - and at least within my university his advisor was quite open about my friend's malfeasance.
He then got a research position at the top company in his field. Got promotions, and then quit and founded a startup that is doing well, and is known to some in this crowd here. If all goes to plan, he'll have his exit and be quite rich.
Now I don't know if he cheated in his second PhD or on the job, and I'm still in touch with him. But ... no - cheaters often continue to do well after graduating.
Disagree from my experience.
When I was a TA in grad school, I had a PhD student who clearly had access to the instructor's solution manual. His answers were copied verbatim. If the solution's manual had an error, so did his answer. If the professor assigned a problem not from the book, he wouldn't answer it. I debated reporting him to the professor, but didn't want the drama and figured what your professor did: He'll do poorly on the exams (I was right), and poorly in the work place.
He got his PhD, got a fairly senior position, and quickly rose to be the director of a well known company's research division.
He probably was smart - he did get the PhD from a top ranked university. But I strongly suspect he gamed the system at his company just as he gamed the system there.
In grad school, I had a close friend. Clearly a very bright, skilled guy. Was kicked out of the PhD program when it was discovered he had been fabricating data (Nature was right about to publish his paper when he got discovered).
He went off to another top ranked university and got his PhD in the same area. I don't know how/why he had the balls to do it, as surely his former advisor would be in close proximity (conferences, etc) - and at least within my university his advisor was quite open about my friend's malfeasance.
He then got a research position at the top company in his field. Got promotions, and then quit and founded a startup that is doing well, and is known to some in this crowd here. If all goes to plan, he'll have his exit and be quite rich.
Now I don't know if he cheated in his second PhD or on the job, and I'm still in touch with him. But ... no - cheaters often continue to do well after graduating.
Reminds of the billionaire who cheated in chess against Vishy.
It is disappointing philosophically but I would imagine how the game theory of this works out strategically if really trying to play an optimal strategy is "always cheat".
There just such asymmetry between the risks vs payouts.
Sadly, I imagine your professor was simply wrong. Most likely even for you there is something you could cheat/lie about that would be practically undetectable and give a huge payout for almost no risk.
This is also why a level of a self delusion is an advantage in our system too. Then you get the benefits of cheating/lies without even knowing it or having to intentionally cheat/lie.
"Cheating ultimately cheats oneself" sounds right but just isn't reality.
There just such asymmetry between the risks vs payouts.
Sadly, I imagine your professor was simply wrong. Most likely even for you there is something you could cheat/lie about that would be practically undetectable and give a huge payout for almost no risk.
This is also why a level of a self delusion is an advantage in our system too. Then you get the benefits of cheating/lies without even knowing it or having to intentionally cheat/lie.
"Cheating ultimately cheats oneself" sounds right but just isn't reality.
> it was a cultural difference that had to be respected
I strongly disagree with that professor. Dishonesty does not have to be, and absolutely should not be, respected. Even if it is a "cultural difference" [citation required].
I strongly disagree with that professor. Dishonesty does not have to be, and absolutely should not be, respected. Even if it is a "cultural difference" [citation required].
>"absolutely should not be, respected"
Taking issue with the 'absolute' part: The cultural context does impact what gets respected, though. For example, having an organization that avoids nepotism is generally respected in the U.S. There are other countries/cultures that do not, at least to the same degree. From their perspective, the more respectable act is to help out those in your tribe/family when you are in a position to do so.
Taking issue with the 'absolute' part: The cultural context does impact what gets respected, though. For example, having an organization that avoids nepotism is generally respected in the U.S. There are other countries/cultures that do not, at least to the same degree. From their perspective, the more respectable act is to help out those in your tribe/family when you are in a position to do so.
Parent specifically said dishonesty should not be respected. Helping people in your family/community is a fine goal as long as it’s not dishonest. If Bob gets hired at global corp A and is able to hire his unqualified family to the detriment of corp A then that’s just as bad. If they’re qualified then there might be a culture clash, but it doesn’t sound necessarily dishonest.
Fair enough. I maybe unfairly characterized both "dishonesty" and "nepotism" as a display of lack of integrity (by the Western definition, which tends to bias toward meritocratic values). “Dishonest” from the standpoint of deviating from the social contract of unbiased and meritocratic hiring.
I don't see nepotism as being dishonest. It may be unseemly or unfair (or not, depending on culture), but it's not dishonest.
Yeah, I didn't draw the distinction I was making clearly enough. I've edited the post, but it's too late to clearly show the edit.
My point being, in the U.S. there is an agreement (implicit or explicit, depending on the context) that hiring will be fair, above board, and based on meritocratic principles. Nepotism undermines this and is, in the distinction I was trying to draw, dishonest from the standpoint that an organization will say one thing ("We hire based on merit") and do another ("We hire based on connections"). Other cultures do not necessarily play this game and make it quite well known that you will be hired based on your network above most else.
My point being, in the U.S. there is an agreement (implicit or explicit, depending on the context) that hiring will be fair, above board, and based on meritocratic principles. Nepotism undermines this and is, in the distinction I was trying to draw, dishonest from the standpoint that an organization will say one thing ("We hire based on merit") and do another ("We hire based on connections"). Other cultures do not necessarily play this game and make it quite well known that you will be hired based on your network above most else.
[deleted]
> it's very galling that it's now becoming accepted as okay behavior in American society due to cultural shifts aligned to low trust societies we do business with
Pull the bandaid off and just admit it -- we're just becoming one of those "low trust societies". And it has nothing to do with who we're doing business with, and it is due to our own culture.
Pull the bandaid off and just admit it -- we're just becoming one of those "low trust societies". And it has nothing to do with who we're doing business with, and it is due to our own culture.
What’s even more depressing is when these liars and cheats ultimately run out of time (people start realizing) they just hop ship.
Which is super encouraged by the standard, "you should be switching jobs every 2 years to maximize your wage".
I assume such events are fairly common, at least in the US. I was once colleague with a [nationality to be preserved, to avoid expanded blame] guy in a CS graduate program, in the US, who had his sister (yes - different gender!) sitting a few exams for him, and passing them, of course.
Absolutely. Values such as "it's wrong even if nobody gets hurt or finds out" are not universally held. Besides differences in culture, there is almost no liberal arts education in places like India.
> Luckily, my professor was right though...
The explanation provided by the professor assuaged your concerns, but their salary was funded in part from the tuitions paid by the cheaters.
The 'grift' is a collaboration between the academic institutions that tolerate cheating and award degrees and GPA scores, and the cheating students that game the process.
The explanation provided by the professor assuaged your concerns, but their salary was funded in part from the tuitions paid by the cheaters.
The 'grift' is a collaboration between the academic institutions that tolerate cheating and award degrees and GPA scores, and the cheating students that game the process.
It's the "fake it 'til you make it" and "good artists copy, great artists steal" mentality that some people really stretch and abuse the meaning of to lift any guilty conscience they would otherwise have, and think "if you can't win, then join 'em".
I mean, I do see the appeal. I would guess it's better to cheat and be successful than to be honorable and be a failure. I can say that the latter really sucks.
According to game theory [0], it all comes right in the end..
Sadly, the time horizon is far too long, and the individual short term benefit far too high for this to be (currently) working out as hoped..
0: https://ncase.me/trust/
Sadly, the time horizon is far too long, and the individual short term benefit far too high for this to be (currently) working out as hoped..
0: https://ncase.me/trust/
I looked at this and followed the whole thing. So good and interesting. It basically implies that one of the keys to a trusting society is repeated interactions and low "mistakes", I.e. things that can be perceived as evil even though they're just honest mistakes.
This is why it's important for in politics and media for them to police their own behavior, because without it there are too many mistakes for a trusting society.
One thing that isn't shown though in the games sandbox mode is for the players to be able to change the rules and reward structures, which is more akin to our society. This would create a much more hard to predict dynamic.
This is why it's important for in politics and media for them to police their own behavior, because without it there are too many mistakes for a trusting society.
One thing that isn't shown though in the games sandbox mode is for the players to be able to change the rules and reward structures, which is more akin to our society. This would create a much more hard to predict dynamic.
> [cheating] was a cultural difference that had to be respected
What he meant to say was "they pay sticker price"
What he meant to say was "they pay sticker price"
I had classmates from France which would be middling in the social trust spectrum -boy oh boy, did they cheat on homework and exams. Same for Koreans and Chinese, but Japanese didn't cheat (or at least I didn't notice).
> folks from India and other low trust societies would mercilessly cheat on their projects and exams, blatantly helping one another on individual works, and the college knew about it and didn't care. When I had brought this up at one point, I was told by a professor that it was a cultural difference that had to be respected
I mean I'm sympathetic to your experience, the treatment you're describing is unfair, but... that also sounds pretty racist.
I mean I'm sympathetic to your experience, the treatment you're describing is unfair, but... that also sounds pretty racist.
I'd only roast you for misunderstanding the "problem" to be solved.
It's not that the societies are "low-trust" but that the cost of being caught for cheating is that you continue with the life already available to you or you win a golden ticket if you're not caught. It's a no-brainer.
There's no reason to not-cheat unless you absolutely don't have to and what's the maxim about good programmers, they're so lazy they'll figure out a work-around to save themselves some time? Even if it's stuff they know already? Once you're into the system there are mutual shared interests and political efforts that can support such a career.
There's no reason to not-cheat unless you absolutely don't have to and what's the maxim about good programmers, they're so lazy they'll figure out a work-around to save themselves some time? Even if it's stuff they know already? Once you're into the system there are mutual shared interests and political efforts that can support such a career.
You essentially just described the difference between low-trust and high-trust societies. In low-trust societies because minimal trust exists, violating trust has minimal consequences. With high-trust societies, losing trust has heavy consequences, because you've violated an expected social norm and it creates reputational damage.
> There's no reason to not-cheat unless you absolutely don't have to
It's a shame that being a decent person is not sufficient reason.
It's a shame that being a decent person is not sufficient reason.
Many generations of people before us ended up prematurely dead by being decent people while others cheated
And many generations of people before us ended up prematurely dead by cheating, as well.
Not endorsing cheating, but in the real world, everyone cheats. Somehow looking up answers in exams is considered cheating, but hiring your buddies (which is very prevalent in tech) for positions they aren’t the best candidates for is not. Everyone cheats, but somehow calling specific societies as low trust while ignoring similar behavior in others is not fair.
It’s the same philosophy of “it’s not bribing it’s lobbying.”
It’s the same philosophy of “it’s not bribing it’s lobbying.”
To add my two bits: I don't support it.
Yes because Americans never cheat to get ahead and we are all morally superior…
Having grown up in America and moved to Czechia for college I have to say that I was absolutely shocked by the level of cheating both by Czechs as well as those from "farther east" like Ukraine and Russia. Just brazen obvious sheeting like taking notes into exams and hiding them. Cooperating during exams. Even collaboration to distract the teacher during exams. When I was at college in the US getting caught cheating once meant an instant fail for the course. Twice meant you were kicked out of school and you'd have a cheating mark added to your credit transfer paper so you couldn't move your college credits elsewhere. In Czechia, getting caught cheating meant having to re-take the test. Nothing bad happened to cheaters and they cheated rampantly.
This contradicts what we read here about cheating being very often tolerated in higher education institutions in the US, because money.
Usually I try including at least a few links, but in this case I think anybody who has read these threads right here on HN should remember those numerous posts and discussions? I remember comments from educators who wanted to do something but the higher-ups prevented it, for example, or reversed the decision. Unfortunately I don't know what to search for to find these kinds of comments again.
EDIT: Found one very quickly after just a little cross-reading of one cheating related thread, the reply to this linked comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32533086
Quote:
> The amount of cheating was insane. He started academic dishonesty proceedings against many of the students but the department pressured him to "work it out."
It's not just the students either: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2019/06/21/americas-l...
Usually I try including at least a few links, but in this case I think anybody who has read these threads right here on HN should remember those numerous posts and discussions? I remember comments from educators who wanted to do something but the higher-ups prevented it, for example, or reversed the decision. Unfortunately I don't know what to search for to find these kinds of comments again.
EDIT: Found one very quickly after just a little cross-reading of one cheating related thread, the reply to this linked comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32533086
Quote:
> The amount of cheating was insane. He started academic dishonesty proceedings against many of the students but the department pressured him to "work it out."
It's not just the students either: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2019/06/21/americas-l...
As someone born and raised in Romania, I can 100% confirm what the above poster was saying for Romania as well. Even if cheating may be widespread through corruption and other means in the States, it is at least theoretically treated much more seriously.
The worse penalty possible for cheating (IF you get caught and IF the teacher/professor even cares, which was not by any means universal) is getting a grade of 1 (out of 10) on that specific item (exam, project etc. ).
This is even true for the national country-wide exams you take in 8th and 12th grades: if you are caught cheating, you get a 1/10 on that specific exam, but can still take all the rest, and will be forced to re-take the one you cheated on in the next session.
The only thing treated more seriously were bachelor's/master's/PhD theses, where you could face plagiarism charges. But even this is mostly theoretical, especially for the bachelor's, since only some cursory verification was ever performed, at least at my university (one of the biggest ones in the capital).
The worse penalty possible for cheating (IF you get caught and IF the teacher/professor even cares, which was not by any means universal) is getting a grade of 1 (out of 10) on that specific item (exam, project etc. ).
This is even true for the national country-wide exams you take in 8th and 12th grades: if you are caught cheating, you get a 1/10 on that specific exam, but can still take all the rest, and will be forced to re-take the one you cheated on in the next session.
The only thing treated more seriously were bachelor's/master's/PhD theses, where you could face plagiarism charges. But even this is mostly theoretical, especially for the bachelor's, since only some cursory verification was ever performed, at least at my university (one of the biggest ones in the capital).
> it is at least theoretically treated much more seriously.
My impression from reading HN, where the topic came up numerous times over the years, was that that is not so. See the link I presented as example, I saw a lot such stories, right here in the discussions, but also in some articles. Not just the US, I also remember similar anecdotes about management preventing punishment from Canada even when a professor initially tried to do something.
If it is not representative I apologize, I go by what I read mostly here, and it was a lot over the years.
There certainly seems to be an official stance against cheating, e.g. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=201609211...
It's just that I saw so many stories from or about educators who tried and it went like in that link I included, especially when many students were caught.
"Why Professors Don’t Do More to Stop Students Who Cheat" - https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-professors-dont-do-mor...
> Some who have tried say that administrators, fearful of lawsuits, don’t back them up
> “In the majority of cases of trivial cheating, I think most professors turn a blind eye,” says Donald L. McCabe, the associate provost for campus development at Rutgers University at Newark, who has studied the issue. “The number who do nothing is very small, but the number who do very little is very large.”
My impression from reading HN, where the topic came up numerous times over the years, was that that is not so. See the link I presented as example, I saw a lot such stories, right here in the discussions, but also in some articles. Not just the US, I also remember similar anecdotes about management preventing punishment from Canada even when a professor initially tried to do something.
If it is not representative I apologize, I go by what I read mostly here, and it was a lot over the years.
There certainly seems to be an official stance against cheating, e.g. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=201609211...
It's just that I saw so many stories from or about educators who tried and it went like in that link I included, especially when many students were caught.
"Why Professors Don’t Do More to Stop Students Who Cheat" - https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-professors-dont-do-mor...
> Some who have tried say that administrators, fearful of lawsuits, don’t back them up
> “In the majority of cases of trivial cheating, I think most professors turn a blind eye,” says Donald L. McCabe, the associate provost for campus development at Rutgers University at Newark, who has studied the issue. “The number who do nothing is very small, but the number who do very little is very large.”
I did say theoretically. That in practice corruption and various power games make it difficult to apply the theory in reality is very different from there just not being any punishment in the rules at all (or only very weak punishment).
Two things can be true at the same time. There is a lot of cheating in america, but nowhere near as much as in low-trust countries.
fwiw - I think Americans value integrity a lot more than most other places, and academic cheating is not nearly as common.
fwiw - I think Americans value integrity a lot more than most other places, and academic cheating is not nearly as common.
> Two things can be true at the same time.
Of course, but the commenter I replied to made a specific statement, first sentence, making it sound to my reading - and I don't think I'm reading something into it that isn't meant to be there? - as if it's a lot less in the US. But even a little bit of searching, and every single time the topic comes up here, which usually is for higher education so I'm not making any statement about anything below, ends up with a lot of comments, and no opposition to them, saying there is a lot of cheating there.
Examples:
https://academicintegrity.org/resources/facts-and-statistics
> McCabe’s original research and subsequent follow-up studies show that more than 60 percent of university students freely admit to cheating in some form.
https://proctoredu.com/blog/tpost/5dk67zrns1-academic-dishon...
> The level of cheating in high school according to statistics is extremely high. One of the most thorough studies, carried out by Dr. Donald McCabe, reveals that about 95% of polled students (both undergraduates and graduates) admitted to having cheated in some form.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheatin...
Therefore, it surprised my that the original commenter made such a strong statement.
Of course, but the commenter I replied to made a specific statement, first sentence, making it sound to my reading - and I don't think I'm reading something into it that isn't meant to be there? - as if it's a lot less in the US. But even a little bit of searching, and every single time the topic comes up here, which usually is for higher education so I'm not making any statement about anything below, ends up with a lot of comments, and no opposition to them, saying there is a lot of cheating there.
Examples:
https://academicintegrity.org/resources/facts-and-statistics
> McCabe’s original research and subsequent follow-up studies show that more than 60 percent of university students freely admit to cheating in some form.
https://proctoredu.com/blog/tpost/5dk67zrns1-academic-dishon...
> The level of cheating in high school according to statistics is extremely high. One of the most thorough studies, carried out by Dr. Donald McCabe, reveals that about 95% of polled students (both undergraduates and graduates) admitted to having cheated in some form.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/27/1031255390/reports-of-cheatin...
Therefore, it surprised my that the original commenter made such a strong statement.
thx for clarification and added links, will read up.
Cheating might be tolerated more in the US if the student is wealthy, which might be a US student or far more likely the scion of some family in a foreign country. It has not been tolerated anywhere I've attended though.
I'm gonna have to go with scarface on this one. While your statements could very well be true, it is dangerous to make cultural generalizations without the data to back it.
What kind of "data" would you accept for this? Crime data by demographic?
Scarface just said "can't generalize to everyone" which is true and not the original point made.
Scarface just said "can't generalize to everyone" which is true and not the original point made.
One thing I've noticed is that many Americans have a blind spot here. You can get away with a lot of corruption and dishonest behaviour if you're the right kind of American because admitting it would be to question the idea of honesty here.
That's usually why the first port of call when some corruption is detected is Finding What's Weird and the second is Not Like The Rest Of Us.
San Francisco's city government is hopelessly corrupt and visibly so for someone who has lived under other obviously corrupt governments. But that is not even apparent to faraway Republicans who are the only ones who will say it is.
But those people are similarly ignorant of the massive corruption of their own local government.
It has taught me a new path of success for corruption: that of hiding in plain sight among those of your identity.
That's usually why the first port of call when some corruption is detected is Finding What's Weird and the second is Not Like The Rest Of Us.
San Francisco's city government is hopelessly corrupt and visibly so for someone who has lived under other obviously corrupt governments. But that is not even apparent to faraway Republicans who are the only ones who will say it is.
But those people are similarly ignorant of the massive corruption of their own local government.
It has taught me a new path of success for corruption: that of hiding in plain sight among those of your identity.
All successful systems sow the seeds of their own destruction.
If he corruption is institutional it’s not seen as cheating
There's a very well studied decline in trust in America over time. Despite your snark no one claimed we never cheated etc. It's just getting much worse
I wonder if Americans' history of seeing cheating as dishonorable grew from our roots in Puritanism, where principle always trumps pragmatism. If so, then perhaps our ongoing devaluation of principles (and our rising mistrust in others to act honorably) is caused by the erosion of those roots as the American middle class has fallen on harder times, concluding that "the rules of the game have changed" and the old mantra of guiding one's life by principle is now delivering diminishing returns. So when in Rome...
It's not Puritanism, but Judaeo-Christianity. In the Bible, God is always described as telling the truth, so any form of misrepresentation is moving yourself towards the opposite of God's character. Cheating is basically a form of misrepresenting yourself; commandment #9 prohibits false testimony about your neighbor, which presumably also includes false testimony about yourself. The New Testament also prohibits lying, as does the Talmud. In fact, the New Testament describes Satan as the father of lies, which presumably reflected Jewish traditions at the time. Imitating the devil would hardly be honorable for either Jews or Christians, and Paul even explicitly says we are to imitate Christ. (Since Paul was a rabbi applying the current Jewish thinking in the context of discovering that Messiah = Christ = God, presumably the Jewish thinking was that we should imitate God)
The Old Testament also offers an approach to dealing with rampant cheating in society: trust in God to provide you with what you need. It's not an exact match for classmates cheating, but David had to deal with a literal existential crisis by a king who believed falsehoods about him, and dealt with it by trusting God and refusing to kill the king (that is, using the king's methods to secure himself). Many of the psalms appear to record the emotional process he went through.
The Old Testament also offers an approach to dealing with rampant cheating in society: trust in God to provide you with what you need. It's not an exact match for classmates cheating, but David had to deal with a literal existential crisis by a king who believed falsehoods about him, and dealt with it by trusting God and refusing to kill the king (that is, using the king's methods to secure himself). Many of the psalms appear to record the emotional process he went through.
It also says invade a country and kill all of the men, women and children and take their land…
https://www.bible.com/bible/1359/1SA.15.3-23.ICB
Even with David, when David sent one of his soldiers to die on the front line so he could have the soldier’s wife, God let David’s baby die.
The Old Testament God wasn’t exactly the loving and forgive your neighbor type.
https://www.bible.com/bible/1359/1SA.15.3-23.ICB
Even with David, when David sent one of his soldiers to die on the front line so he could have the soldier’s wife, God let David’s baby die.
The Old Testament God wasn’t exactly the loving and forgive your neighbor type.
Does this correlate with the increase in polarization? I know Jonathan Haidt has spoken about his research on the increase in polarization is America.
If that correlation exists, it may point to an alternative hypothesis to the GP claim that the issue is rooted in those coming from "low trust" societies and due to an internal mechanism.
If that correlation exists, it may point to an alternative hypothesis to the GP claim that the issue is rooted in those coming from "low trust" societies and due to an internal mechanism.
This gets back to my other statement where people seem to ignore Jim Crow laws and the segregated south. How much more “polarized” can people be than literally being forced by law to do everything separately?
So you’re saying we are less polarized? How do you square that with Haidts research?
He completely ignored Jim Crow laws and segregation where one side wanted to be treated as equals and the other side wanted to keep them segregated ?
By definition, being forced to drink out of separate water fountains is putting people on the opposite side - ie opposite poles.
By definition, being forced to drink out of separate water fountains is putting people on the opposite side - ie opposite poles.
His analysis was within the context of social media driving polarization, so why would you expect it to look at the Jim Crow era? It seems like you’re starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
Nobody claimed that americans never cheated, yet the blame of things getting worse is put on GP on those coming from “low trust” societies.
It’s a xenophobic lie, like if Americans don’t celebrate lying on positive euphemisms like “fake it till you make it” or “being a good salesman”
It’s a xenophobic lie, like if Americans don’t celebrate lying on positive euphemisms like “fake it till you make it” or “being a good salesman”
It may be xenophobic, but whether it's a lie is separate from that and it may or may not be. Unpalatable assertions can still be true.
For what it's worth, "fake it till you make it" is far from being universally seen as positive, and (car) salesmen are seen as one of the most untrustworthy and least liked professions (just above telemarketers and members of congress). [1]
1: https://thehill.com/business/3812900-here-are-the-most-and-l...
For what it's worth, "fake it till you make it" is far from being universally seen as positive, and (car) salesmen are seen as one of the most untrustworthy and least liked professions (just above telemarketers and members of congress). [1]
1: https://thehill.com/business/3812900-here-are-the-most-and-l...
> if Americans don’t celebrate lying on positive euphemisms like “fake it till you make it” or “being a good salesman”
Most Americans that I know don't consider those phrases to reflect positive values at all. They're used disparagingly against people who really think like that.
Most Americans that I know don't consider those phrases to reflect positive values at all. They're used disparagingly against people who really think like that.
Either you live in some bubble or you're just lying lol.
Fwiw I've usually seen "fake it till you make it" in 2 contexts:
1. Disciplines in which skill development requires overreaching beyond one's current skill level eg musical improvisation
2. In reference to confidence eg many software developers experience imposter syndrome and have to pretend to be more confident than they actually are in order to be taken seriously, even if they are the most skilled in the room
Do you have an alternative explanation? Or is your stance that it just couldn't possibly be immigrants?
Maybe academic cheating is related to people pursuing a degree more like a passport to riches than a vocational pursuit.
I mean, the whole reason why people also lie in other areas. Which also explains why people of “low trust” societies might lie more rather than “it’s in the culture of those dirty foreigners”.
I mean, the whole reason why people also lie in other areas. Which also explains why people of “low trust” societies might lie more rather than “it’s in the culture of those dirty foreigners”.
Similar experiences have been reported by people who came from these places
I guess “trust” was at an all time high when there were literally laws against Black people being in the same section as White people, sundown towns in the south and laws against black people marrying white people?
Not every facet of society is related to racism. Saying I prefer the days of a single income being enough to survive on doesn't mean I wish black's and women had less rights. It's an orthogonal point. Wages are gone because manufacturing moved overseas in the same time period, etc...
Those were the same days…
I assure you that “the good old days” weren’t so good for my still living parents growing up in the segregated south.
As far as “not everything being related to race”, tell that to my parents who grew up in the 60s and 70s when everything was related to their race there those were the good old days.
They literally weren’t “trusted” to drink out of the same water fountain, go to the same schools or swim in the same pool.
I assure you that “the good old days” weren’t so good for my still living parents growing up in the segregated south.
As far as “not everything being related to race”, tell that to my parents who grew up in the 60s and 70s when everything was related to their race there those were the good old days.
They literally weren’t “trusted” to drink out of the same water fountain, go to the same schools or swim in the same pool.
Different issues, unrelated
We are talking about “trust” receding in society. The majority didn’t “trust” the minority enough to even allow them to be a part of society. It’s only a different issue to you because your parents can wax poetically about the “good old days”
Are you implying trying to increase societal trust would increase racism? You aren't making an obvious point. Trust and racism are inverses?
I’m not implying anything. I’m stating very explicitly that people who say trust is lower now than some mythical time in the past is the same time period when the US had laws explicitly targeting “others” because they didn’t trust Black people (Jim Crow laws, laws against miscegenation, redlining), Japanese (internment camps), etc.
The only people who long for “the good old days” when “trust” was high are those who benefited themselves or whose parents benefited from systematic and de jure discrimination.
The good old days when you could live off of one income came about because Europe was recovering from a war and we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.
The only people who long for “the good old days” when “trust” was high are those who benefited themselves or whose parents benefited from systematic and de jure discrimination.
The good old days when you could live off of one income came about because Europe was recovering from a war and we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Americans cheat at earth-scale by bringing about into existence of intricate systems that benefit them immensely.
Yeah, I mean one thing that's interesting about the world is that every country cheats, but we all cheat in our own ways. I don't think there's anyway to get around it.
That said, I don't really want American culture to continue down this "if the ends justify the means" trend that we've been on. We're not cut out for it! We'll get our lunch eaten.
That said, I don't really want American culture to continue down this "if the ends justify the means" trend that we've been on. We're not cut out for it! We'll get our lunch eaten.
America, as a country, is "dollar" wise and cents foolish, which is a good thing to be, if we invert the meaning of original phrase.
America has been "going down the road" of ends justify the means since WW2. What exactly was the massacre in the Korean war and Vietnam war if not. And sanctions to starve citizens of numerous countries. Etc etc.
Agreed, and it's also hard to consider the US as on some kind of general decline from high trust to low trust. American honesty has always been highly contextual. All it takes is a look into how we treated written agreements with Native Americans to see how small the radius of this value extends. Native societies were "high trust" in the sense that they had no ability, at least initially, to comprehend that settlers would sign an agreement with the full knowledge that they would renege on it as soon as the conditions had favorably changed. This is much more in keeping with a game theory style decision making process than anything related to an adherence to a higher moral virture or whatever. Native peoples experienced this process one by one, and eventually none trusted the word of colonialists ever again.
High/low trust at root refers to how you behave to other members of your nation, not foreign peoples. Every nation ever has always tried win zero-sum interactions with other nations (e.g. who gets the land, resources), and all existing nations today continue to do so. Native American societies may have been high trust internally (within the tribe, clan, nation boundary) but certainly screwed over other Native American societies (e.g. the Haida and Tlingit practiced hereditary chattel slavery of foreign tribesmen for hundreds of years before European contact). What I'm getting at is that there effectively is no such thing as "high trust" in international relations so your example isn't cogent.
Point taken, but consider the context of where we are in this thread: discussing immigrants and foreign contract workers cheating in interviews and on their resumes for positions within the United States. Perhaps your point is more applicable to how the idea of high or low trust cannot apply to workers operating in a culture foreign to their own.
The example of inter tribal slavery doesn't actually apply to what I'm talking about. Slavery, and highly destructive, unprovoked raids which sometimes concluded with massacres of women and children were normal in the Americas. Is enslaving a member of another band or tribe a violation of trust? Is engaging in unprovoked war raids a violation of trust? These practices would not come as a surprise to anyone living within raiding territory of a warlike people. Trust can only come into play when a party to an agreement, whether tacit or explicit, has an opportunity to violate what was agreed upon.
Saying "Every nation ever has always tried win zero-sum interactions with other nations" conceals that there were actually vast differences in the way colonialist powers conducted themselves in relations with Native American tribes. The (at the time British) Canadian government honored treaties much more often and in better faith than US authorities.
The example of inter tribal slavery doesn't actually apply to what I'm talking about. Slavery, and highly destructive, unprovoked raids which sometimes concluded with massacres of women and children were normal in the Americas. Is enslaving a member of another band or tribe a violation of trust? Is engaging in unprovoked war raids a violation of trust? These practices would not come as a surprise to anyone living within raiding territory of a warlike people. Trust can only come into play when a party to an agreement, whether tacit or explicit, has an opportunity to violate what was agreed upon.
Saying "Every nation ever has always tried win zero-sum interactions with other nations" conceals that there were actually vast differences in the way colonialist powers conducted themselves in relations with Native American tribes. The (at the time British) Canadian government honored treaties much more often and in better faith than US authorities.
When you're getting colonized, I don't know if it really matters whether the colonizers honor their promises more or less. Consider the Maori, the gold standard for a colonized people who managed to get a full treaty with the British very early on, even securing representation in government in the mid-1800s. Are they meaningfully any better off as a result of these agreements, relative to other indigenous groups? Not really, and in recent times they even seem to have slid back on many important welfare and quality of life metrics, despite changes in NZ policies towards Maoris that should have had the opposite effect. Sure the Maori may have built up "trust" in the colonizers' treaties, but since they were an out-group it didn't affect their day-to-day interactions, so they didn't reap the benefits that go with being part of the high trust society.
My point is that in-group relations is not the same as out-group relations. High trust is about how you treat members of your in-group. Enslaving foreign people is most certainly a "low trust" move (how can I possibly enter an agreement with you when I know you might just show up one day and enslave me?) but it's fully possible and consistent for the perpetrator to belong to a high trust society.
My point is that in-group relations is not the same as out-group relations. High trust is about how you treat members of your in-group. Enslaving foreign people is most certainly a "low trust" move (how can I possibly enter an agreement with you when I know you might just show up one day and enslave me?) but it's fully possible and consistent for the perpetrator to belong to a high trust society.
I think you'd be surprised by just how possible it would be to enter into a successful and good faith agreement with a warring tribe which has enslaved or massacred your people. Spanish colonists in New Mexico did so with the Comanche despite the Comanche holding hundreds of captive New Mexicans who they had kidnapped. How did this work? The New Mexicans honored their treaty, and the Comanche established a degree of personal trust with their governer, Juan Bautista de Anza. This treaty was signed in the wake of massacres on both sides, and the captives were not returned. The Comanche continued to raid and kidnap in other regions of New Spain after the treaty was signed. Part of the reason you might find something like this hard to believe is because of your own cultural attitudes about war and slavery, but these are not universal attitudes.
Your example of the Maori is perfectly analogous to what happened in Canada/ But regardless of how things turned out, why did the British honor treaties when they had no incentive to do so? How do you account for this difference in a world dominated by purely rational decision making when interacting with those outside of your culture?
Your example of the Maori is perfectly analogous to what happened in Canada/ But regardless of how things turned out, why did the British honor treaties when they had no incentive to do so? How do you account for this difference in a world dominated by purely rational decision making when interacting with those outside of your culture?
Why did they honor treaties rather than just continuing with open conflict? The juice wasn't worth the squeeze. In general you only fight a war when a) you're being attacked or b) there is something to be gained by doing so that, in expectation, is more valuable than the cost of the war. If there'd had been mountains of gold in Canada to be won, or if the indigenous peoples had put up less of a fight (imposed less of a cost), you can bet the British would not have signed any treaties. Same with New Zealand.
Bretton Woods was an own goal by Europe because they couldn’t stop killing each other for centuries. America benefited because immigrants who leave are typically quite bright and willing to take risks.
The perfect storm of incompetence created the system we inherited from our forefathers. It benefits Americans, but maybe the wealth is also killing us due to massive obesity and sedentary lifestyles on top of a greedy litigious society.
No system is perfect.
The perfect storm of incompetence created the system we inherited from our forefathers. It benefits Americans, but maybe the wealth is also killing us due to massive obesity and sedentary lifestyles on top of a greedy litigious society.
No system is perfect.
One person's cheating-in-an-interview is another person's giving-the-gatekeeper-the-answer-they-want.
Your manager wants you to have a second laptop open when they ask you for information.
The goal of interviews is to determine if the candidate has useful skills.
Integrity is determined by a background check and the bar is typically low and subject to removal for-the-right-candidate.
In the end, people fetishizing integrity to their own detriment are a risk to people further up the org-chart who approach the business more pragmatically.
Business ethics are utilitarian not deontological and using a laptop to pass an interview is not contrary to a categorical imperative.
It's just business. People at the top of the org chart want to work with people like them. People who treat passing the interview as the job at hand and are able to succeed.
Your manager wants you to have a second laptop open when they ask you for information.
The goal of interviews is to determine if the candidate has useful skills.
Integrity is determined by a background check and the bar is typically low and subject to removal for-the-right-candidate.
In the end, people fetishizing integrity to their own detriment are a risk to people further up the org-chart who approach the business more pragmatically.
Business ethics are utilitarian not deontological and using a laptop to pass an interview is not contrary to a categorical imperative.
It's just business. People at the top of the org chart want to work with people like them. People who treat passing the interview as the job at hand and are able to succeed.
TL;DR : Cheaters like others who cheat, don't beat yourself up if you aren't accepted.
The thing is clearing the interviews is much harder than doing the day to day job in any of these companies. In all of big tech, most people are working on trivial crud apps or trivial services passing data around. The skills to succeed are similar to cheating in interviews. Most people I know in all of big tech have never used any data structure more complex than a resizable array. Very few people in big tech work on the real hard problems. The interview process difficulty and the day to day job difficulty are just not related, not to mention that in day to day job being able to get solutions from others is a very important skill for you to succeed.
One thing the interview process does is to weed out totally incompetent candidates. Even one such candidate, once inside, can be extremely harmful to the morale of a team.
One thing the interview process does is to weed out totally incompetent candidates. Even one such candidate, once inside, can be extremely harmful to the morale of a team.
Your last point is an important one. There are a large number of incompetent applicants. Prior to the most recent round of tech layoffs, I would go so far as to say that the majority of applicants were incompetent. That's not to say the majority of programmers are incompetent, but because the interview filter processes tend to not select the incompetent, they accumulate in the applicant pool.
Any "fix" to the interview process has to accommodate the reality that the left half of the applicant pool distribution is of terribly low levels of ability.
Any "fix" to the interview process has to accommodate the reality that the left half of the applicant pool distribution is of terribly low levels of ability.
> Any "fix" to the interview process has to accommodate the reality that the left half of the applicant pool distribution is of terribly low levels of ability.
I would like to see some distinction between people who apply cold, and people who have been reached out to by a company.
I'm an experienced, employed engineer, and if a company reaches out to me, I expect to not be treated in an interview like "gotta see if you are a faker! You could be coasting for 15 years! We get soooo many applicants."
That's the (in-house) recruiter's job, or hiring manager's. Don't waste my damn time like this.
I would like to see some distinction between people who apply cold, and people who have been reached out to by a company.
I'm an experienced, employed engineer, and if a company reaches out to me, I expect to not be treated in an interview like "gotta see if you are a faker! You could be coasting for 15 years! We get soooo many applicants."
That's the (in-house) recruiter's job, or hiring manager's. Don't waste my damn time like this.
I think there are three categories rather than just two. Cold application, reached out to by a recruiter, or referred by a former colleague. Seeing how internal recruiting or "sourcing" works, I don't see it as being vastly different from a cold application. Someone dredged up your profile on LinkedIn and reached out to you based on a keyword search (in all likelihood). Once you responded, they passed you off to the recruiting pipeline. There's not much more signal in you having a keyword on LinkedIn as having a keyword on your resume.
Only the third, a referral from an actual ex-colleague, would I skip any of the basic vetting steps. (Said differently, I agree "that's the (in-house) recruiter's job, or hiring manager's"; this is them doing it...)
Only the third, a referral from an actual ex-colleague, would I skip any of the basic vetting steps. (Said differently, I agree "that's the (in-house) recruiter's job, or hiring manager's"; this is them doing it...)
Referral too at this point is gamed too much. People think of referrals more as a favour that gives them brownie points than anything else.
100% agreed! That's why I specified "from an actual ex-colleague" rather than "from someone they once got a LinkedIn request from but knows nothing about and couldn't pick out of a police lineup".
> Oh well she isn't dumb. She did solve 75-100 problems during the course of her master's degree of 2 years. She just can't solve any question on her own
This is exactly my problem, I have solved very difficult problems at big companies, but I need time and research to understand and solve anything. I need to sleep on the problem. I need to get comfortable and release the stress when the seemingly complex problem is presented to me, otherwise I'll drown in a glass of words. Recently tried interviewing with HackerRank and the whole experience is horrible: weird multilevel scrolling, single character variables, answers must be equal character by character including blanks. I just quit those interviews.
This is exactly my problem, I have solved very difficult problems at big companies, but I need time and research to understand and solve anything. I need to sleep on the problem. I need to get comfortable and release the stress when the seemingly complex problem is presented to me, otherwise I'll drown in a glass of words. Recently tried interviewing with HackerRank and the whole experience is horrible: weird multilevel scrolling, single character variables, answers must be equal character by character including blanks. I just quit those interviews.
I do think this is an even bigger indictment of the interview process. If they're actually more competent in the role and not getting PIP'd and getting promotions, it means the interview was worthless to start, it would filter out a good candidate and pass a candidate who may only know how to do toy problems without any engineering skill.
Maybe a good candidate in this organization is one that will leverage every edge they have to produce a desired result. Resourcefulness and risk tolerance are a potent pair.
This assumes internal performance evaluation is functional/unexploitable in these orgs.
I remember failing a Facebook SWE interview a couple years back after a few months of studying "Cracking the Code" and some other textbooks - I blanked out on a rather basic question in retrospect ("reverse a linked list in place). It never really occurred to me to cheat, at the time I just figured Facebook had a high precision and low acceptance method of hiring - I could probably do the job pretty well but I didn't show high enough "precision" in the interview so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I can tell an anecdote - when I took my qualifying exams in graduate school, every year there would be a different exam committee drawn from the faculty staff and their job was to come up with new questions. When I studied I looked at past exams going back 20 years and there was only a single question that was somewhat similar to a prior one - so cheating was quite impossible in the situation. People also underestimate the time and effort it takes to setup and design testing that is difficult to cheat. It's effort on the part of the testers and very hard to scale.
I used to design and interview for DS positions at my old job and I only had a question bank of 2-3 long form problems, in a case study style that I would use on all the candidates. The interviews are exhausting and it's a lot work because I have to personally "escort" each candidate through the problem and assess them qualitatively.
I can tell an anecdote - when I took my qualifying exams in graduate school, every year there would be a different exam committee drawn from the faculty staff and their job was to come up with new questions. When I studied I looked at past exams going back 20 years and there was only a single question that was somewhat similar to a prior one - so cheating was quite impossible in the situation. People also underestimate the time and effort it takes to setup and design testing that is difficult to cheat. It's effort on the part of the testers and very hard to scale.
I used to design and interview for DS positions at my old job and I only had a question bank of 2-3 long form problems, in a case study style that I would use on all the candidates. The interviews are exhausting and it's a lot work because I have to personally "escort" each candidate through the problem and assess them qualitatively.
The person's friends all went to large corporations.
Someone who was willing to cheat so aggressively (keyboard with another laptop behind the current one?!) won't take credit for someone else's work? Play politics relentless? Lie about their contributions? Etc.. And all of these things help you get promoted in large corporations. And this was from entry level to mid level. It does get a little harder if you're a complete fraud for senior and staff levels.
Someone who was willing to cheat so aggressively (keyboard with another laptop behind the current one?!) won't take credit for someone else's work? Play politics relentless? Lie about their contributions? Etc.. And all of these things help you get promoted in large corporations. And this was from entry level to mid level. It does get a little harder if you're a complete fraud for senior and staff levels.
So, I teach IT at a university, and of course part of me has concerns.
But honestly, at heart, I respect the hacker ethos more than I do the majority of "big (or little) tech" business hiring processes. They accomplished the job.
When I deal with cheating, I see it as my job to be "ahead of it" or I'm not worthy to teach? (And also, I don't much see it my job to be a cheating cop as much as it is my job to teach.)
PERFECT case in point; all the Chat AI things that came out recently. I have a few multiple choice tests that I used to be able to recycle pretty easily. But ChatGPT comes out, and can get 100% with explanations on them. What that meant to me was "time to rewrite at least some of the questions."
And so today, I tell my students exactly this. Most of the time it'll probably be correct, but I've deliberately put like 5 or 6 in there that the Chat things confidently answer completely incorrectly. Good luck.
(note: Yes, they're open-internet / take home. They weren't until the pandemic, and to my complete surprise, my averages came out exactly the same whether or not they were closed-book one hour in class or open-internet, take a whole weekend)
But honestly, at heart, I respect the hacker ethos more than I do the majority of "big (or little) tech" business hiring processes. They accomplished the job.
When I deal with cheating, I see it as my job to be "ahead of it" or I'm not worthy to teach? (And also, I don't much see it my job to be a cheating cop as much as it is my job to teach.)
PERFECT case in point; all the Chat AI things that came out recently. I have a few multiple choice tests that I used to be able to recycle pretty easily. But ChatGPT comes out, and can get 100% with explanations on them. What that meant to me was "time to rewrite at least some of the questions."
And so today, I tell my students exactly this. Most of the time it'll probably be correct, but I've deliberately put like 5 or 6 in there that the Chat things confidently answer completely incorrectly. Good luck.
(note: Yes, they're open-internet / take home. They weren't until the pandemic, and to my complete surprise, my averages came out exactly the same whether or not they were closed-book one hour in class or open-internet, take a whole weekend)
It's not surprising to me that people cheat or don't see cheating as bad. Cheaters literally do prosper. Like in college applications, you can absolutely write lies. Nobody's going to check if you were captain of the track team. Nobody's going to fact check your essay about how you came out as gay[1].
Even the people who don't cheat understand how to stretch and bend the truth. You take a minor event and turn it into a whole college essay. You take a side project and turn it into a supposed startup. Hackathons are competitions for who can lie the best and claim their flashy front end will change the world. There was a period where the same project won hackathon after hackathon. And sure, hackathons are not exactly a big deal. But if you're cheating at a hackathon, why not cheat at a job interview?
So much of what we teach in school these days is how to play the game, how to appear more impressive than you are, how to trick people into believing you're smarter than other people.
[1]: Both of these are first-hand experiences, i.e. I knew the people who did them
Even the people who don't cheat understand how to stretch and bend the truth. You take a minor event and turn it into a whole college essay. You take a side project and turn it into a supposed startup. Hackathons are competitions for who can lie the best and claim their flashy front end will change the world. There was a period where the same project won hackathon after hackathon. And sure, hackathons are not exactly a big deal. But if you're cheating at a hackathon, why not cheat at a job interview?
So much of what we teach in school these days is how to play the game, how to appear more impressive than you are, how to trick people into believing you're smarter than other people.
[1]: Both of these are first-hand experiences, i.e. I knew the people who did them
it will get worse due to social media. Humans being herd animals, if we feel like cheaters are prospering our us, we will also start cheating, which will essentially destroy trust in society and make it a third world country.
This sounds like a business idea to me. Rent small rooms in highly populated areas, make sure cell phone signals are blocked, let interviewed do their virtual interviews in this room on a provided computer. Sell it as "certified interview" to big tech.
Befor COVID, my AWS certification exam was in such a setting. It was an office space with a row of cubicles each containing a monitor, keyboard and mouse. You drop your belongings at the receptionist and walk in to take the test.
I sat in an interview at one point and thought. Gee I wish I'd cheated because it would have been so easy.
That said I have not needed to cheat at an interview I do wonder how many failed applications or financial worries I'd need to have before I would try anything.
We all have our moral breaking point, it's on you to build your life to be resilient to that.
Once you reach that point all bets are off. If it means keeping food on the table and shelter over head I don't expect it off people.
It's impossible to stop cheating it is easier to make it useless.
That said I have not needed to cheat at an interview I do wonder how many failed applications or financial worries I'd need to have before I would try anything.
We all have our moral breaking point, it's on you to build your life to be resilient to that.
Once you reach that point all bets are off. If it means keeping food on the table and shelter over head I don't expect it off people.
It's impossible to stop cheating it is easier to make it useless.
Or, is it just another version of Fake it Till You Make it.
Lot of programmers that can pass the interview questions might not survive a large organization, and vice versa, they can't pass but would be good at surviving.
Generally the larger the organization, the less 'individual performance'/'merit' is a factor, and it becomes more about being 'personable'. Technical skills decline in importance.
Of course, there is inertia. Some of these big organizations, that have lost the ability to 'create' highly complex applications, are riding on their size and inertia and tend towards eventual collapse. Not an iron rule, I've been surprised that it is Microsoft that seems to be able to re-invent and keep high tech skills focused on actual tech.
Lot of programmers that can pass the interview questions might not survive a large organization, and vice versa, they can't pass but would be good at surviving.
Generally the larger the organization, the less 'individual performance'/'merit' is a factor, and it becomes more about being 'personable'. Technical skills decline in importance.
Of course, there is inertia. Some of these big organizations, that have lost the ability to 'create' highly complex applications, are riding on their size and inertia and tend towards eventual collapse. Not an iron rule, I've been surprised that it is Microsoft that seems to be able to re-invent and keep high tech skills focused on actual tech.
Corruption is like cancer. It spreads and metastasizes through society quickly. If students see other students cheat and get ahead and not get punished they'll be incentivized to cheat. If instructors see a large number of students getting 100%, obviously the material is too easy, they'll make the problems harder. Pretty soon it is impossible to operate or do anything without either bribing or cheating.
Dishonesty and a cavalier attitude towards cheating is something taught at home early on. Poverty, institutional disfunction play a role but at some point they become part of the societal mores. If you don't cheat you just look stupid and naive and people make fun of you.
Dishonesty and a cavalier attitude towards cheating is something taught at home early on. Poverty, institutional disfunction play a role but at some point they become part of the societal mores. If you don't cheat you just look stupid and naive and people make fun of you.
The most interesting example that I read about was a Facebook employee trying to get a new job. They hadn’t done any Leetcode in many years and struggled with it as it was so unrelated to their work. I’m surprised that companies don’t re evaluate people on Leetcode on a regular basis given the amount of weight placed on this.
My gf used chatgpt for her cv and interview process, using it generate a presentation task they gave her (she is doing project management type stuff). They offered her the job the next day.
when i took my quantum mechanics qualifier, i studied for a month, i was honest, i worked so hard. The exam was so tough (I passed), but as I was walking out I saw a student who had all the old exam questions with solutions printed out on his "table of integrals". Sure, maybe I "learned" some quantum mechanics more than that guy. But it's a topic I have never used (I do geophysics and machine learning) so I don't think I remember much of anything about quantum mechanics. So what was the lesson learned there? "Work smart, not hard"? "Do whatever the minimum is because that is all that gets assessed"? "The goal is all that matters"? "The ends justify the means"? "Worry about yourself"?
There’s something seemingly dysfunctional in academia that made you get the best degree in quantum physics and then not work in quantum physics.
I mean it is really common and not your fault, but people end up getting a PhD in these really advanced subjects all the time and then just leverage the ancillary coding and data analysis skills they happened to pick up on the way to get high paying tech jobs in unrelated fields. It seems like a massive waste of brain power that we could target more effectively.
I mean it is really common and not your fault, but people end up getting a PhD in these really advanced subjects all the time and then just leverage the ancillary coding and data analysis skills they happened to pick up on the way to get high paying tech jobs in unrelated fields. It seems like a massive waste of brain power that we could target more effectively.
> There’s something seemingly dysfunctional in academia that made you get the best degree in quantum physics and then not work in quantum physics.
The following article is the best example of the above quote.
https://nautil.us/what-does-any-of-this-have-to-do-with-phys... What Does Any of This Have To Do with Physics? Einstein and Feynman ushered me into grad school, reality ushered me out.
The following article is the best example of the above quote.
https://nautil.us/what-does-any-of-this-have-to-do-with-phys... What Does Any of This Have To Do with Physics? Einstein and Feynman ushered me into grad school, reality ushered me out.
Ruthlessly focus on your goals and don't get distracted by side quests.
Don’t do things that are not useful, enjoyable, or rewarding.
yes i think you hit the nail on the head. that is what i do now. but that took time to arrive to even though it seems so easy when you say it now.
This being of course exactly the mindset the current mainstream interview process was designed to create. As a feature, not a bug.
As a teacher, I 'work' with cheaters. Some learn their lesson, some don't. I try to explain that while you might be able to cheat in a school, you certainly won't be able to cheat on the job. I guess this is a naive perspective.
This is a very naive take that lets people feel good that cheaters will one day face their comeuppance. They don't. Learning to cheat itself is sometimes a useful skill. It means you have figured out what's important that's going to get assessed, and you have figured out a way to pass the assessment. That skill will help you in the workplace as well.
You can go a long way in work without doing anything of value by getting credit for any success and dodging blame for any failure. Cheating goes a long way here.
Don’t even get me started on cheating metrics.
Don’t even get me started on cheating metrics.
A disappointing part of adult life is how often "just lie" is the best advice.
I don't think it's the "best advice". The problem with lies is that one lie begets another, and you end up trying to defend a whole bunch of lies that don't necessarily weave together coherently.
I guess I have low appetite for risk.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive."
I guess I have low appetite for risk.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive."
The lie only has to last long enough for people to forget about it.
To say nothing of the ethics of cheating, I think this behavior speaks to the value of the interview process. If it can be gamed so easily, it's likely not a great measure of the quality of the candidate and the companies that have implemented deserve the hires they make.
It'd doubtful the folks at the company actually mind that the interviews are being cheated. If the candidates appear to be qualified and appear to be fill the role for which they were hired and appear to be competent in that role, that's sufficient for most corporations and one of the problems working in "tech". That is to say, there are plenty of people in it that appear to be doing a thing, but aren't actually capable.
Somewhere in this thread a poster mentioned woodworking, which is a nice contrast. If you hire a carpenter, it becomes obvious pretty quickly if the carpenter is competent.
It'd doubtful the folks at the company actually mind that the interviews are being cheated. If the candidates appear to be qualified and appear to be fill the role for which they were hired and appear to be competent in that role, that's sufficient for most corporations and one of the problems working in "tech". That is to say, there are plenty of people in it that appear to be doing a thing, but aren't actually capable.
Somewhere in this thread a poster mentioned woodworking, which is a nice contrast. If you hire a carpenter, it becomes obvious pretty quickly if the carpenter is competent.
the problem is that its a zero-sum game, you can only compare performance across a cohort. if the majority of your cohort cheats, and cheating hurts performance, then they'll all be low performance and you'll still end up promoting some of them (because thats just what happens)
> you can only compare performance across a cohort
I can't accept this premise. Optimally the persons responsible for managing engineering staff should be able to independently determine whether the work being produced was of sufficient quality or not regardless of the cohort.
At issue here, I believe is that this is a difficult thing to cultivate consistently in many corporations and so there's some desire to create standardized metrics for performance against which a cohort is measured. Regardless, most large tech firms have some kind of well defined rubric against which the engineers are measured.
I can't accept this premise. Optimally the persons responsible for managing engineering staff should be able to independently determine whether the work being produced was of sufficient quality or not regardless of the cohort.
At issue here, I believe is that this is a difficult thing to cultivate consistently in many corporations and so there's some desire to create standardized metrics for performance against which a cohort is measured. Regardless, most large tech firms have some kind of well defined rubric against which the engineers are measured.
what do you mean sufficient? I think the premise is that all these people can get the job done, but some of them can do it better and faster. In the big tech scene its not about being sufficient, its about being the fastest (faster than the competitor)
Interviews are indeed broken and largely pointless. For so many reasons, interviews often have no real relationship to the work or skills required. It's no surprise that interview cheaters can still be successful at roles. Of course it's also possible that they aren't really accomplishing much at work due to any other number of company failures.
I refuse to do rounds of interviews any more. I will have the initial recruiter call and then one solo or team online call to talk, but no tests and no projects. I've burned far too many hours on this in the past; and when I get the role, I walk in and find they actually need about 1/10th of my skills and mental capacity.
Put the candidate on a 1-month trial contract. If that goes well, then extend the contract or convert it to employment.
I refuse to do rounds of interviews any more. I will have the initial recruiter call and then one solo or team online call to talk, but no tests and no projects. I've burned far too many hours on this in the past; and when I get the role, I walk in and find they actually need about 1/10th of my skills and mental capacity.
Put the candidate on a 1-month trial contract. If that goes well, then extend the contract or convert it to employment.
Agreed that interviewing is largely broken and pointless. Often due to companies trying to standardize their process. I once went to interview at a company where a few former colleagues work and they had standardized their interview process. I was really put out as a lot of the interview was answering questions that they already knew my skill level in and even acknowledging it.
The situation where the job you accept is below your skill set may be a failing on your side of the interview process. When interviewing I'm as concerned about finding out what I can about the job and what it entails as I am about making a good impression to the interviewer. I'm not going to accept a job where I'm not confident that I'm going to enjoy it. On the other side of the table I'm constantly surprised at how few candidates actually take an interest in what they are going to be doing, even when given very explicit opportunities to engage in that way. I don't want to hire someone that is going to turn around and leave because it wasn't what they expected.
The situation where the job you accept is below your skill set may be a failing on your side of the interview process. When interviewing I'm as concerned about finding out what I can about the job and what it entails as I am about making a good impression to the interviewer. I'm not going to accept a job where I'm not confident that I'm going to enjoy it. On the other side of the table I'm constantly surprised at how few candidates actually take an interest in what they are going to be doing, even when given very explicit opportunities to engage in that way. I don't want to hire someone that is going to turn around and leave because it wasn't what they expected.
The standard process at tech companies for interviewing and assessing candidates is completely ludicrous. I like writing software but I've given up on the industry because of attitudes around hiring and advancement within companies. It just sucks dick everywhere I've worked.
I'm more impacted by the inverse: as someone who's done programming for decades, been hired many times, been promoted, survived multiple layoff rounds (and moved cities and states to stay loyal), started and ran my own computer game biz, had independent clients I've shipped for successfully, has technical writing artifacts online, and code in my public GitHub repos I should NOT have to be "tested" by now to check if I'm a real programmer or not, or whether I'm smart, or whether I solve and ship. I clearly have and do. Therefore its nauseating, insulting, seems insane and just plain gets old.
I sometimes wonder if experienced engineers should begin "testing" hiring companies by requiring them to send a typical paycheck deposit -- you know, just to be 100% sure they have the ability to do that, rather than blindly trusting them in good faith.
Perhaps we should start a guild?
I sometimes wonder if experienced engineers should begin "testing" hiring companies by requiring them to send a typical paycheck deposit -- you know, just to be 100% sure they have the ability to do that, rather than blindly trusting them in good faith.
Perhaps we should start a guild?
I actively avoid companies that ask random leet-code problems, but the sad reality of the situation is I can't avoid it completely.
While I think being unscrupulous in any shape or form is incorrect, I do feel some sense of revenge in fooling people who whole heartedly give in to this unfair process.
Being unfair to an unfair process, seems pretty fair to me(i know extreme opinion, but I am trying to find a job, its frustrating how people don't care what you are actually going to do at a job, and just ask you random questions that might be related to what you do in a distant way).
I've tried searching for solutions in the past in interview situations, but am not smart enough to cheat like that, always end up fumbling. Hence has resorted to going back to grinding on LeetCode.
While I think being unscrupulous in any shape or form is incorrect, I do feel some sense of revenge in fooling people who whole heartedly give in to this unfair process.
Being unfair to an unfair process, seems pretty fair to me(i know extreme opinion, but I am trying to find a job, its frustrating how people don't care what you are actually going to do at a job, and just ask you random questions that might be related to what you do in a distant way).
I've tried searching for solutions in the past in interview situations, but am not smart enough to cheat like that, always end up fumbling. Hence has resorted to going back to grinding on LeetCode.
Seems more and more that the people who cut corners get ahead. Lie, cheat, and steal is the path to success these days. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that we are slipping in national rankings and the top desired jobs are performers and influencers.
"We laugh at honor, and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." - C. S. Lewis
I am not sure if any self respecting person wants to work in such places among such people with such culture.
But it is good to know what kind of people are in charge in those organizations, thanks for the info.
But it is good to know what kind of people are in charge in those organizations, thanks for the info.
I saw someone who was recently hired as a coworker get fired as soon as it was found out that he lied on his resume.
For those who try to be honest, it's good to occasionally see justice in this world.
For those who try to be honest, it's good to occasionally see justice in this world.
I confess myself completely unsurprised that amazon interview performance has no bearing on actual job performance.
I would bet money that most companies have this problem.
I would bet money that most companies have this problem.
There is no such thing as "cheating" once you're out of school and the sooner new grads realize that the better off they will be. The real world is very much "fake it till you make it", "do whatever is necessary" because we're all just trying to make money to live and retire.
And even school is arguably step 1 in the process of making money so that we can live and retire.
Even within the school system. I intend to teach my kids the only problem with cheating is the punishment that might result. Cheating has a price along with a weighted chance of that price applying. Is what you might gain worth the expected price?
The greatest regret of my life is not lying blatantly to get admissions and scholarships to university.
The greatest regret of my life is not lying blatantly to get admissions and scholarships to university.
I’m a pretty firm believer in first learning the rules and only then, learning when it’s “OK” to break them. You’re probably not doing your kids any favors by skipping the first step.
As children many of us were always lead to believe that doing the right thing will always be the right thing to do. That doing the right thing will get you to where you want to be in life. As we grow older we quickly realize that is just not the case. Is it right to be dishonest? Of course not. But it does make it hard to compete in a society when a not insignificant percentage of that society are willing to lie, deceive or commit a fraud to get a leg up.
I still choose to be honest about my education, qualifications and experience in my professional life. But I personally know people around me who have lied. They never admit it outright, but by being perceptive and just listening to people I can hear them give different facts to different people depending on the situation. It happens, a lot.
I still choose to be honest about my education, qualifications and experience in my professional life. But I personally know people around me who have lied. They never admit it outright, but by being perceptive and just listening to people I can hear them give different facts to different people depending on the situation. It happens, a lot.
Say they cheated to get into FB, Google, Amazon -- these companies all have a track record of cheating! Basically big biz is all about bending the rules: trade influence, use over seas letterbox companies to evade tax back home, run illegal anti-union teams, plausible deniability, etc. etc.
In my long computer career, I've only had a couple of times where someone got ahead of me by lying or misrepresenting their skills. When working with such people, it's pretty obvious to most that they don't know what they're doing. While I have also been a very helpful person, I have a rule: I refuse to help someone who has misrepresented their skills. This type of person has no problem lying to get ahead then expecting everyone to help them out when they get in trouble. And that occurs frequently of course, because they are in over their head.
First example was when I was the tech lead on a huge Ford project. I was only 20, doing great, Ford loved me, but the computer company I worked for (Prime) was uneasy about relying so much on a 20 y/o in his 2nd year of college for this huge project. So they hired a new guy, a Pakistani with a degree who wore a suit everyday and had a glowing resume (apparently). First, the guy was nearly impossible to understand. Second, he didn't know shit. Third, instead of spending his time reading through manuals to figure things out, he'd just ask me since his cube was next to mine. My standard answer was "I don't know". He could have asked me what color grass is and that would have been my answer. They kept him a few months, fired him when it became obvious he couldn't do shit on his own, and put me back on the account.
The other time was when a contract project manager at IBM decided he wanted to work on a project that was supposed to be for me. I was still busy with a previous IBM project (he was my project manager on that) and couldn't start for a couple of months, and since IBM was in a hurry, the project manager told them he could do it. He was a great project manager, but not even a good programmer. His previous technical experience was more with hardware. After a few months, I got called in to review his work because he kept saying he would be done in a week. I met with him, found out he didn't even have this thing compiling without errors (it was a platform conversion of a large CAD program), and he asked me if I'd help him. I said no, even though it was very hard for me to do that. I met with IBM, they asked me if I could take it over and finish it. I told them I could do it but would not be able to use any of his work, especially since he hadn't made much progress. They fired him, gave me the contract, and it was finished in a couple of months.
So if you run into people who have cheated to get where they are, don't help them, no matter how nice you are or how bad it might make you feel. They don't deserve your help and will have to qualms about taking a promotion over you, even though they couldn't have done it without your help.
First example was when I was the tech lead on a huge Ford project. I was only 20, doing great, Ford loved me, but the computer company I worked for (Prime) was uneasy about relying so much on a 20 y/o in his 2nd year of college for this huge project. So they hired a new guy, a Pakistani with a degree who wore a suit everyday and had a glowing resume (apparently). First, the guy was nearly impossible to understand. Second, he didn't know shit. Third, instead of spending his time reading through manuals to figure things out, he'd just ask me since his cube was next to mine. My standard answer was "I don't know". He could have asked me what color grass is and that would have been my answer. They kept him a few months, fired him when it became obvious he couldn't do shit on his own, and put me back on the account.
The other time was when a contract project manager at IBM decided he wanted to work on a project that was supposed to be for me. I was still busy with a previous IBM project (he was my project manager on that) and couldn't start for a couple of months, and since IBM was in a hurry, the project manager told them he could do it. He was a great project manager, but not even a good programmer. His previous technical experience was more with hardware. After a few months, I got called in to review his work because he kept saying he would be done in a week. I met with him, found out he didn't even have this thing compiling without errors (it was a platform conversion of a large CAD program), and he asked me if I'd help him. I said no, even though it was very hard for me to do that. I met with IBM, they asked me if I could take it over and finish it. I told them I could do it but would not be able to use any of his work, especially since he hadn't made much progress. They fired him, gave me the contract, and it was finished in a couple of months.
So if you run into people who have cheated to get where they are, don't help them, no matter how nice you are or how bad it might make you feel. They don't deserve your help and will have to qualms about taking a promotion over you, even though they couldn't have done it without your help.
I agree with you, and I believe in the same. People that help cheaters don't realize that these people put up a sweet face and good behavior just so they can stab you in the back and take all that they can because they view you as a sucker. Helping them doesn't benefit anyone.
Heck, I'd even go as far as to say that large corporations that generate a lot of money depend on just a few individuals of extraordinary merit who are (by naivete or (social) design) incentivized to spread the attribution of work done. This sort of distribution is never equal by design; if the genius (proper definition https://geniusfamine.blogspot.com/) is a 100x-er then there'll be a thousand leeches vying for bragging rights to the work that they aren't responsible for. This is often called "prestige", and is something the west inherited from the third world, where people routinely make shit up and even though everyone knows in their bones that it's made up, they play along. In time, people get too stupid to even know that. If you can induce "prestige" in random people, that's brand loyalty. Someone that can do all of this, capture a bright sucker and put a thousand leeches on him is called a really great ""innovator"", like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and who knows how many more. These guys never did much, were handed things on a silver platter and managed to be the luckiest (not in the ironic / "hardwork" manner) guys. Modern large-scale society rewards these people handily because all the extortion and gaslighting of the competent is abstracted away into the "public good" and "shareholder and company value". I don't believe everyone gets a leech or two, because not everyone is able to contribute. Most people can't read above a fifth grade level. Heck, most of finance is based around the upper management servicing their friends at the expense of everyone else. Everything is downstream of that, and most white-collar work is now a scramble just to determine where the most competent people work, and exploiting them (this is done not just the people at the top, but also by their "fellow colleagues"!).
Family is supposed to be exempt from these things. Societies that consider this a given often flourish into first world economies, and remain so as long as they keep the real leeches at bay. Societies that don't never rise from the muck.
It's in the leech's interest to help out others like him.
This also explains the absolute seethe that libertarian viewpoints generate. Reading someone like Ayn Rand actually scares these people because she advocates for people to stop being taken advantage of when there's nothing in it for them. Same for a lot of authors like Rothbard and Mises, they're all "overturned" on their idealism but all the critique of the daylight robbery is quietly squashed (aka never addressed) by the opposition.
Imagine being called a "sucker" by the leeches. Gaslighting at its finest.
Heck, I'd even go as far as to say that large corporations that generate a lot of money depend on just a few individuals of extraordinary merit who are (by naivete or (social) design) incentivized to spread the attribution of work done. This sort of distribution is never equal by design; if the genius (proper definition https://geniusfamine.blogspot.com/) is a 100x-er then there'll be a thousand leeches vying for bragging rights to the work that they aren't responsible for. This is often called "prestige", and is something the west inherited from the third world, where people routinely make shit up and even though everyone knows in their bones that it's made up, they play along. In time, people get too stupid to even know that. If you can induce "prestige" in random people, that's brand loyalty. Someone that can do all of this, capture a bright sucker and put a thousand leeches on him is called a really great ""innovator"", like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and who knows how many more. These guys never did much, were handed things on a silver platter and managed to be the luckiest (not in the ironic / "hardwork" manner) guys. Modern large-scale society rewards these people handily because all the extortion and gaslighting of the competent is abstracted away into the "public good" and "shareholder and company value". I don't believe everyone gets a leech or two, because not everyone is able to contribute. Most people can't read above a fifth grade level. Heck, most of finance is based around the upper management servicing their friends at the expense of everyone else. Everything is downstream of that, and most white-collar work is now a scramble just to determine where the most competent people work, and exploiting them (this is done not just the people at the top, but also by their "fellow colleagues"!).
Family is supposed to be exempt from these things. Societies that consider this a given often flourish into first world economies, and remain so as long as they keep the real leeches at bay. Societies that don't never rise from the muck.
It's in the leech's interest to help out others like him.
This also explains the absolute seethe that libertarian viewpoints generate. Reading someone like Ayn Rand actually scares these people because she advocates for people to stop being taken advantage of when there's nothing in it for them. Same for a lot of authors like Rothbard and Mises, they're all "overturned" on their idealism but all the critique of the daylight robbery is quietly squashed (aka never addressed) by the opposition.
Imagine being called a "sucker" by the leeches. Gaslighting at its finest.
ChatGPT et al has run online coding exercises/trivia/exams pointless imho, leetcode problems are cool solution to the problem if you want someone with lots of "raw abstract knowledge" but zero real world experience.
Promotion in USA seems to be more like a thing that most happen every one or two years at work rather than for work well done, last time i had a friend that was working for a faang (pre-layoffs) and show me he was like a third level manager for several projects because he had 3+ years at company, he still does the same job as when he got in just that now has to manage or mostly deal with upper management request for estimated time to finish every day.
Promotion in USA seems to be more like a thing that most happen every one or two years at work rather than for work well done, last time i had a friend that was working for a faang (pre-layoffs) and show me he was like a third level manager for several projects because he had 3+ years at company, he still does the same job as when he got in just that now has to manage or mostly deal with upper management request for estimated time to finish every day.
Fraud is pretty rampant across the corporate / academic world, and I imagine relatively few people actually pay any price for cheating, falsifying data, etc. I'd guess over 95% of academic fraudsters get away with it at some level, as long as they're not incredibly blatant about it. The few cases you see in the media are generally so flagrant that it's hard to understand how they got away with it for as long as they did.
It's probably safe to assume that any research group (or business outfit), public or private, that doesn't have active fraud-detection and fraud-prevention policies in place is engaging in fraudulent activity of some sort.
It's probably safe to assume that any research group (or business outfit), public or private, that doesn't have active fraud-detection and fraud-prevention policies in place is engaging in fraudulent activity of some sort.
This is a personal anecdote about something orthogonal to the article. A few months ago, I wrote an exam to get an AWS certification. Before the test, I had to take the adjudicator on a virtual tour of my exam space. My space was small so I had to do near gymnastics to give the supervisor the sight lines that she needed.
Solutions to this already exist and I find it somewhat heard to believe that a company like Pearson knows so much more than Amazon.
I wonder if this is a situation where companies know there is cheating, perhaps even have ways to identify it but cheating just isn’t treated as a strong enough negative signal in the hiring process to be worth fighting.
Solutions to this already exist and I find it somewhat heard to believe that a company like Pearson knows so much more than Amazon.
I wonder if this is a situation where companies know there is cheating, perhaps even have ways to identify it but cheating just isn’t treated as a strong enough negative signal in the hiring process to be worth fighting.
Software engineer interviews are hard because simultaneously:
1. They are adversarial where the interviewer is trying to tell if the interviewee is cheating and evaluate their performance.
2. They are trying to, as much as possible, emulate the team-oriented work environnment where the relationships are cooperative. So the interviewer is trying to be on the interviewee's "side" as much as possible to see what it would be like to work with them.
These two goals are in opposition, which is one of the reasons why SE interviewing is so hard to do well.
If you make the interview more explicitly adversarial like examinations are, you do a better job of weeding out cheaters. But you also bias towards candidates that are comfortable with adversarial interactions and you lose vital signal about their cooperation ability.
1. They are adversarial where the interviewer is trying to tell if the interviewee is cheating and evaluate their performance.
2. They are trying to, as much as possible, emulate the team-oriented work environnment where the relationships are cooperative. So the interviewer is trying to be on the interviewee's "side" as much as possible to see what it would be like to work with them.
These two goals are in opposition, which is one of the reasons why SE interviewing is so hard to do well.
If you make the interview more explicitly adversarial like examinations are, you do a better job of weeding out cheaters. But you also bias towards candidates that are comfortable with adversarial interactions and you lose vital signal about their cooperation ability.
some cheaters are actually good at what they cheat about and simply cheat to obtain additional advantage. the post seems pretty whiny to me. morally he's right but we happen to live in a "doggy-dog" world and moral codes are promoted by successful cheaters to keep the plebs under control. I don't want to justify cheating but it's game theoretic conclusion that you either play the game by the by the rules and most likely you will lose or you cheat a little and get a chance at winning. I hate that our society is like that but I can't change it.
I found this laughable at best, this not school anymore kid welcome to the real world, people will do what they need to do to get what they want but I do agree hiring process is broken for many other reasons.
Another way to look at it is that modern capitalist societies require you to have a job to participate in said society and the benefits it incurs. It's a work to live system. And these companies care only about profits, not people, and they will fire anyone at the drop of a hat if it means dividends for investors or protecting executive bonuses. There is absolutely no benefit to loyalty nor honesty because the companies themselves do not have these virtues.
There's also the fact that despite efforts in recent years to control biases in the hiring process and promotions; it still creeps in. The odds are stacked against people from minority demographics from getting work at all let alone a decent paying job. It often doesn't matter how well they do or whether they play by the rules.
It seems a bit cynical if you believe the world should be mostly meritocratic but unfortunately it's not.
In some ways cheating is the morally correct course of action.
There's also the fact that despite efforts in recent years to control biases in the hiring process and promotions; it still creeps in. The odds are stacked against people from minority demographics from getting work at all let alone a decent paying job. It often doesn't matter how well they do or whether they play by the rules.
It seems a bit cynical if you believe the world should be mostly meritocratic but unfortunately it's not.
In some ways cheating is the morally correct course of action.
Cheating is one of valuable soft skills that square nerds are often unable to master. Marketing, sales, people management, internal politics, raising capital all require some degree of cheating.
And this is how you realize real life is not a board game. And this is how you're left with an impostor syndrome after a career based on google-fu and stackoverflow copy pasta.
Wow! People are paid 230k, 2 years after uni? No wonder my generation can't afford to rent a decent house or even dream about buying a house...
in a system where the company takes a large majority of the value I provide for a company, is incentived in many cases to underpay & overwork, who can fire me at any point for any reason, and takes a majority of the time in my life - I would label cheating as evening the playing field in my favor a little bit
US society is based on merit, but not just merit, also on trust.
Once this behavior is normalized, the trust aspect will start eroding.
Once this behavior is normalized, the trust aspect will start eroding.
"and she is now SMTS in 2 years" implies this person got a promotion every year.. At Salesforce's development pace I somehow doubt this person made such an impact to go straight to a senior position. Especially during a period of hiring freezes, promotion freezes, and squeezing profit margins.
I don’t disagree with the main points here.
It is interesting that the form of cheating would be defeated with in person interviews / testing.
I do wonder if you cheat your way into Amazon wouldn’t you get caught being bad on the job after you are hired?
Or are we talking about people who are generally qualified but look better than others because they cheated?
It is interesting that the form of cheating would be defeated with in person interviews / testing.
I do wonder if you cheat your way into Amazon wouldn’t you get caught being bad on the job after you are hired?
Or are we talking about people who are generally qualified but look better than others because they cheated?
I think the issue is the interview process, because clearly the difficulty of the interview does not match the difficulty of the job.
Sure, they cheated to get in, but then once in they found out it wasn't that hard to stay and get promoted.
Sure, they cheated to get in, but then once in they found out it wasn't that hard to stay and get promoted.
It's also possible that they kept cheating in order to get promoted, of course.
I dunno, I think it's pretty hard to keep cheating as a developer. How would a developer even cheat to get promoted? I mean, a PM I can see survive for longer, but a SDE?
I actually had this issue at my current job where we hired someone who seemed great and who did really well on his interview exercises but then once he started working... well, it was pretty obvious he did not know what he was doing at all. So he was let go straight away. There was no way he could cheat his way to stick it out for longer than a month.
I actually had this issue at my current job where we hired someone who seemed great and who did really well on his interview exercises but then once he started working... well, it was pretty obvious he did not know what he was doing at all. So he was let go straight away. There was no way he could cheat his way to stick it out for longer than a month.
It's also possible they can understand solutions provided to them and even implement but not be able to come up with solutions under strict time pressure.
"Or are we talking about people who are generally qualified but look better than others because they cheated?"
Bingo. The cheaters will get the job because they will look better than similarly qualified candidates.
Bingo. The cheaters will get the job because they will look better than similarly qualified candidates.
The people who hired you probably cheated too. Lots of bad hires covering for each other, often without realizing it.
[deleted]
I'm curious do they get promoted from cheating or really doing the work. There are those people who get stuff done by getting others to help them do it. Not sure how the manager would find out though, without the peers who help telling.
Nice to see UT Dallas represented here, even if it's in this context.
Nice to see UT Dallas represented here, even if it's in this context.
I noticed during the years that the people that cheat in the interviews are not afraid to lie on results or steal colleagues' work and pretend it is theirs. When enough managers are fine with that, it becomes an internal open secret on how promotions work. When you also have targets for promotions and you have to bend the rules (pretty bad) to meet these targets, the entire evaluation and promotion system becomes a joke.
It looks like a lot of the cheating can be curbed with in-person interviews. As for rapid promotion, I guess the cheaters had some skill, otherwise I blame the management for being idiots and they deserve what they got. It's surprising to find cases where there was no due diligence done.
I remember some guy on Twitter (a prominent programmer) openly admitting that he and other folks cheated on interviews by simply going to them (or paying someone), and then share the questions around. I think it highlighted the incredible privilege that some people have when looking for a job.
[deleted]
This isn't cheating in my mind. They use tools available to them just like they will have on their job. I would ask clarifying questions and if they understand what they are saying then why does it matter that the memorized the answer vs memorized how to find the answer
My friend who got me my current job once told me about how he got into the Games industry. Back in the university days of applying to Coop positions he had a day with 2 interviews back to back. While he bombed the first interview, he had some excellent interviewers who were happy to show him where he did poorly and guide him through the problems to the correct answers. On the second interview, they used the same questions and he got the job.
Now? He runs his own studio. After spending ~10 years in various positions at AAA and Indie studios he's out doing it on his own, and best as I can tell he's doing a damn good job of it. I won't doxx him, but he's got his name under several highly regarded releases.
Am I conflicted with the idea of cheating interviews? Perhaps a bit. But knowing a brilliant mind like him just needed the guidance to get through a terrible practice to show his true talent? I'm happy he was fortunate to be able to ""cheat"" in the way he did. I wish him all the best.
Now? He runs his own studio. After spending ~10 years in various positions at AAA and Indie studios he's out doing it on his own, and best as I can tell he's doing a damn good job of it. I won't doxx him, but he's got his name under several highly regarded releases.
Am I conflicted with the idea of cheating interviews? Perhaps a bit. But knowing a brilliant mind like him just needed the guidance to get through a terrible practice to show his true talent? I'm happy he was fortunate to be able to ""cheat"" in the way he did. I wish him all the best.
That's not cheating? That sounds like the interviewers could see his potential and guided/corrected him through the process. His willingness to take feedback and keep going in itself would be something to be commended, especially for a new grad.
What's discussed in the post is clear deception of the interviewers by the interviewee (using a second laptop to google answers), which is a very different thing.
What's discussed in the post is clear deception of the interviewers by the interviewee (using a second laptop to google answers), which is a very different thing.
I don't think that the response should be to lock down the interview process further but rather interview candidates for what the role entails rather than asking arbitrary leetcode questions. The screening process is broken. Make cheating irrelevant.
There is a very simple way to stop this behavior: ship a 360º camera to every applicant and dictate where it should be placed, or stop doing remote interviews.
There are even simpler ways to stop this behavior, but I won't speak about that here.
There are even simpler ways to stop this behavior, but I won't speak about that here.
we need to face the reality that in capitalism, anything you can get someone else to do* for cheaper than your own price should be outsourced. Hiring cheaters does select for someone who can take other's work and apply it for their own situation, whilst capturing the value difference (essentially capitalism).
Love it or hate it, it's actually a selected for skill perhaps immorally applied.
Additionally companies create their promotable skill set (both explicitly and implicitly), if their system is selecting for something, its not incumbent on you to break yourself against that system, play the game the way it's set up and allow the Executive class to reap the pros/cons of their setup.
Edit: One more thought is that when you look at an evolutionary style thought system, there's no "playing fair" in nature. Yes relationships and such have value, but being hired vs not being hired is a sort of reproductive event where whatever gets you hired means you get the experience/resume item and your competitors do not.
* do at a sufficient substitution equivalence
Love it or hate it, it's actually a selected for skill perhaps immorally applied.
Additionally companies create their promotable skill set (both explicitly and implicitly), if their system is selecting for something, its not incumbent on you to break yourself against that system, play the game the way it's set up and allow the Executive class to reap the pros/cons of their setup.
Edit: One more thought is that when you look at an evolutionary style thought system, there's no "playing fair" in nature. Yes relationships and such have value, but being hired vs not being hired is a sort of reproductive event where whatever gets you hired means you get the experience/resume item and your competitors do not.
* do at a sufficient substitution equivalence
one way to get around this is to effectively say someone's work belongs to them, and to take it is to infringe on that. however many techies do not find that acceptable.
another way solution is to install what is effectively malware on candidates' computer to ensure honesty. however techies complain about privacy.
yet another is to make it so interviews are in person, and to begin to end remote work, as it is obviously easier to cheat and do things like be overemployed when you're remote. again, not acceptable.
so of course this kind of things happens. it is what it is
another way solution is to install what is effectively malware on candidates' computer to ensure honesty. however techies complain about privacy.
yet another is to make it so interviews are in person, and to begin to end remote work, as it is obviously easier to cheat and do things like be overemployed when you're remote. again, not acceptable.
so of course this kind of things happens. it is what it is
I’ve learned that not the best engineers or the smartest engineers get promoted. I’ve given up on trying to get a promotion and just self promote or self raises by moving companies.
Just thinking what the 'contemporary' equivalent of this would be, they could use ChatGPT instead and get a well fleshed out answer they can read out pretty much word for word.
There should be standardized, monitored tests for Eng jobs. No point in every company repeating essentially the same test with a lot of variance in how the test is conducted.
What's the point of school if it can't do the basic job of collating learners by actual ability?
That's the job of school. You personally learning something is a side effect.
That's the job of school. You personally learning something is a side effect.
What sort of person hopes their friends get fired. Someone should tell them they associate with a person with no integrity or character.
Let's not forget the "Fake it until you make it". It's driving force of any software related project.
These guys took the "fake it till you make it" startup hustler "ethos" to heart.
Then the interviews weren't good for screening what the company actually needed.
The interview system is ridiculous. Test people's knowledge, not their leetcode skills.
Fake it until you make it.
YMMV
YMMV
“If somebody offers you an amazing opportunity but you are not sure you can do it, say yes – then learn how to do it later!”
― Richard Branson
[deleted]
Basically they have no integrity.
Honesty matters more than technical merit -- at least when I'm hiring.
How do you identify liars who are technically skilled at lying? It seems like an intractable problem.
The best option I can see is to refuse to hire "obvious" dishonest people, aka unintelligent dishonest people. But intelligent dishonest people are able to pass without us knowing they are dishonest, and cannot be identified until their low performance becomes apparent. And we wouldn't hire unintelligent people to begin with.
And, evaluating performance in software is notoriously difficult, dare I say impossible? A skilled and intelligent dishonest person can come up with many plausible-sounding excuses for why things are taking so long.
So do you just fire anyone that takes longer than normal? In that case, you scare the actual good engineers, they will just go somewhere safer.
In the end, I don't think there's a way to evaluate honesty, without ruining your business. So I think bad actors are always rewarded.
The best option I can see is to refuse to hire "obvious" dishonest people, aka unintelligent dishonest people. But intelligent dishonest people are able to pass without us knowing they are dishonest, and cannot be identified until their low performance becomes apparent. And we wouldn't hire unintelligent people to begin with.
And, evaluating performance in software is notoriously difficult, dare I say impossible? A skilled and intelligent dishonest person can come up with many plausible-sounding excuses for why things are taking so long.
So do you just fire anyone that takes longer than normal? In that case, you scare the actual good engineers, they will just go somewhere safer.
In the end, I don't think there's a way to evaluate honesty, without ruining your business. So I think bad actors are always rewarded.
I'll share my perspective on cheating here too, as it may be a bit unique.
My HS had a huge cheating scandal erupt near the end of my senior year. The short of it was that many of our parents worked in tech and those skills were taught to my classmates. A wiki was formed as a homework helping site. Kids would get feedback from each other on their homework and tests and whatnot. A genuine good idea.
Well, until the next year rolled over. It turned out that all but two of the teachers reused the exact same homework assignments and tests from year to year. My compatriots discovered, to their great joy, that they had built an answer key for the whole school.
This went on, unbeknownst to me, for ~3 years of my time at the school. I can remember sitting in classes and being totally flummoxed at how these people were doing so much better than I was. I was putting in long hours to try to stay with the cheaters. Honestly, I still have to catch myself when I think that it takes my longer to learn things than other people. I don't, I was just raised competing against the answer key. It's a journey I'm still on and affects me to this day.
Everything was going great until one of the kids was dumb and used the wiki in a class. A teacher saw it, blew the whistle, and things got messy. It made the front page of the paper, there was a Dr. Phil episode, etc. However, no college admissions were rescinded. Outside of some light wrist slapping, the cheaters were rewarded for their cheating, and the teachers who failed up went back to doing nothing again (I had friends in lower grades that I could verify with). Essentially, the cheating worked.
That, at least, was the lesson I told myself all those years ago. However, Facebook is a magical thing in this case. I can follow up and see, decades later, what happened to all the cheaters. It's not been pretty. Not to bore, but their lives aren't the best. A few got dishonorable discharges, one went to Harvard law and after the 4th divorce is now a yoga teacher outside Austin, another is in the slammer for SEC violations, a fair few are in prison for drug dealing, you get the gist here right? To my jaded eyes, not a single one is living what I would call a good life. Their flowers are not in bloom.
The failures of our teachers, parents, and my classmates' own honor during their formative years have lead, without any exceptions, to unfulfilled lives at best, and shambles for most.
Yes, cheating did work. In the short term. But especially in those formative years, it ultimately lead to catastrophe and ruin for my classmates.
Now, taking my view here of cheating to what OP has said: Don't worry about the cheater making more than you do. If they cheat on things like a job interview, then they cheat on things much more and less important as well. They cheat on their taxes, they cheat on their SOs, they cheat in card games with their nephews at Thanksgiving. They, generally, are cheating jerks. And yeah, maybe they get a better car, or a better house. You know, short terms things.
But, due to my own experiences, those cheaters have lives you don't want to live. I know this is super Socratic/Platonic of me, but I have seen it happen with my very own two eyes and with my very own two ears. I have lived this, I am still living this. Not cheating, not being with people too dumb to see the blatant cheaters, not being around enablers of cheaters, that is a reward far greater than the short term gifts that cheating enables.
My HS had a huge cheating scandal erupt near the end of my senior year. The short of it was that many of our parents worked in tech and those skills were taught to my classmates. A wiki was formed as a homework helping site. Kids would get feedback from each other on their homework and tests and whatnot. A genuine good idea.
Well, until the next year rolled over. It turned out that all but two of the teachers reused the exact same homework assignments and tests from year to year. My compatriots discovered, to their great joy, that they had built an answer key for the whole school.
This went on, unbeknownst to me, for ~3 years of my time at the school. I can remember sitting in classes and being totally flummoxed at how these people were doing so much better than I was. I was putting in long hours to try to stay with the cheaters. Honestly, I still have to catch myself when I think that it takes my longer to learn things than other people. I don't, I was just raised competing against the answer key. It's a journey I'm still on and affects me to this day.
Everything was going great until one of the kids was dumb and used the wiki in a class. A teacher saw it, blew the whistle, and things got messy. It made the front page of the paper, there was a Dr. Phil episode, etc. However, no college admissions were rescinded. Outside of some light wrist slapping, the cheaters were rewarded for their cheating, and the teachers who failed up went back to doing nothing again (I had friends in lower grades that I could verify with). Essentially, the cheating worked.
That, at least, was the lesson I told myself all those years ago. However, Facebook is a magical thing in this case. I can follow up and see, decades later, what happened to all the cheaters. It's not been pretty. Not to bore, but their lives aren't the best. A few got dishonorable discharges, one went to Harvard law and after the 4th divorce is now a yoga teacher outside Austin, another is in the slammer for SEC violations, a fair few are in prison for drug dealing, you get the gist here right? To my jaded eyes, not a single one is living what I would call a good life. Their flowers are not in bloom.
The failures of our teachers, parents, and my classmates' own honor during their formative years have lead, without any exceptions, to unfulfilled lives at best, and shambles for most.
Yes, cheating did work. In the short term. But especially in those formative years, it ultimately lead to catastrophe and ruin for my classmates.
Now, taking my view here of cheating to what OP has said: Don't worry about the cheater making more than you do. If they cheat on things like a job interview, then they cheat on things much more and less important as well. They cheat on their taxes, they cheat on their SOs, they cheat in card games with their nephews at Thanksgiving. They, generally, are cheating jerks. And yeah, maybe they get a better car, or a better house. You know, short terms things.
But, due to my own experiences, those cheaters have lives you don't want to live. I know this is super Socratic/Platonic of me, but I have seen it happen with my very own two eyes and with my very own two ears. I have lived this, I am still living this. Not cheating, not being with people too dumb to see the blatant cheaters, not being around enablers of cheaters, that is a reward far greater than the short term gifts that cheating enables.
People who use multiple "angry face" emojis to express themselves are generally moody, petulant and emotionally unfit to work among highly compensated engineers. Instead of whining, adapt and overcome the circumstances you recognize in your professional life.
Well... yeah!
When I was in undergrad [1] there was a student whose average after first year was a D, ie he had to repeat first year of engineering.
Instead, he got into the ECE program (our university has first year engineering as a common year) that has a B+ entrance requirement. Only about 10-15% of students had >B+.
He failed out of ECE with another D average. The university rules were clear. Two straight D averages and you are kicked out of Eng. (or the school?).
Instead he was put into the nuclear program, an unpopular program with only a C requirement. That's where I dealt with him (I chose nuke despite my B+/A- average. Big mistake).
There he kept a C minus average largely from cheating but also thanks to professor largesse.
When he graduated he got a coveted job at the state controlled energy company at one of their nuclear sites. Typical candidates needed a B+ to get in if they were a disadvantaged group. White men like our protagonist needed a solid A.
His average? A C
His secret? Why so much largesse from the professors? His dad was the vice president of said government company. He went on to be president and the best paid public employee. Most people in tech in SV dont make the money this man was making.
I used to hate this kid. In private he was one of the most racist, misogynist people I've ever met. He gladly told anti-Semitic holocaust jokes. He'd bully anyone weaker than he, and cajole and act saintly to anyone above him.
Im past my anger now. Because, in fairness, he is where he belongs. He was quickly promoted to a position where his technical incompetence could not harm the public and now enjoys a management position. He's too politically savvy in too woke an environment to harm women, (or Jews) but his ability to navigate and exploit corruption, frankly, benefits the public corporation. Maybe even the public.
[1] in a progressive northern country where nothing bad is supposed to happen
When I was in undergrad [1] there was a student whose average after first year was a D, ie he had to repeat first year of engineering.
Instead, he got into the ECE program (our university has first year engineering as a common year) that has a B+ entrance requirement. Only about 10-15% of students had >B+.
He failed out of ECE with another D average. The university rules were clear. Two straight D averages and you are kicked out of Eng. (or the school?).
Instead he was put into the nuclear program, an unpopular program with only a C requirement. That's where I dealt with him (I chose nuke despite my B+/A- average. Big mistake).
There he kept a C minus average largely from cheating but also thanks to professor largesse.
When he graduated he got a coveted job at the state controlled energy company at one of their nuclear sites. Typical candidates needed a B+ to get in if they were a disadvantaged group. White men like our protagonist needed a solid A.
His average? A C
His secret? Why so much largesse from the professors? His dad was the vice president of said government company. He went on to be president and the best paid public employee. Most people in tech in SV dont make the money this man was making.
I used to hate this kid. In private he was one of the most racist, misogynist people I've ever met. He gladly told anti-Semitic holocaust jokes. He'd bully anyone weaker than he, and cajole and act saintly to anyone above him.
Im past my anger now. Because, in fairness, he is where he belongs. He was quickly promoted to a position where his technical incompetence could not harm the public and now enjoys a management position. He's too politically savvy in too woke an environment to harm women, (or Jews) but his ability to navigate and exploit corruption, frankly, benefits the public corporation. Maybe even the public.
[1] in a progressive northern country where nothing bad is supposed to happen
And here I am refusing to do whiteboarding, stuck doing menial API plumbing because all of the SMBs think they should interview like FAANG without the respective compensation. Maybe I should start cheating.
Cheating is only wrong if you get caught. Sincerely cooperating with the system is a losing strategy for you nowadays but of course the system will promote it.
Oh, you mean capitalist society cares more about results than morals, and often being able to bend and sacrifice morals actually makes you a better capitalist (pawn)? What an unexpected result.
It's called having soft skills.
don't hate the player, hate the game.
orange version: show me the incentives, i'll show you the outcome
orange version: show me the incentives, i'll show you the outcome
seems fine. it's a competency test and they've passed.
Your friends did whatever was needed to pass the interview. You did not.
How is it surprising that they're the ones getting raises? Clearly they're willing to risk more than you are for the reward.
Only getting caught cheating guarantees loss.
Playing fair does not guarantee winning.
How is it surprising that they're the ones getting raises? Clearly they're willing to risk more than you are for the reward.
Only getting caught cheating guarantees loss.
Playing fair does not guarantee winning.
What a corrupt way to view the world.
Wait till you see how the business people you're working for see the world!
If the companies wanted a fair interview they would ask questions and have a discussion that only a skilled engineer with real world experience could have.
Is it not a true representation?
Person adept at exploiting one human process (interviews) is good at exploiting another human process (performance reviews / promotions).
Calling it “risk taking” seems overly reductive.
Calling it “risk taking” seems overly reductive.
How is cheating risky? You get caught, you don't get the job. End of story.
On the other hand, not cheating means it will be harder to get the job. This seems to be the riskier strategy (but, I'd argue, has the greater reward.)
On the other hand, not cheating means it will be harder to get the job. This seems to be the riskier strategy (but, I'd argue, has the greater reward.)
If one considers Kant's categorical imperative, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," then also considers how they'd feel if they were go to visit a doctor who had cheated or is cheating, one certainly must draw the conclusion that cheating is indeed immoral and undesirable.
I'd rather my doctor look up an answer in a medical textbook rather than "not cheat" and allow me to die in adherence to the noble idea that only the ideas we can keep in our long-term memory are worthy.
Rarely in real life will the situations not be open book exams. While coding, we have access to interactive/searchable docs, demos, tutorials, and of course SO and the likes. At work, we can chat with co-workers when we're stuck or have an idea but really feel like there's probably something better if more than one head was working on it.
a cheating doctor would prescribe / perform unnecessary drugs / procedures / surgeries for personal gain or out of carelessness.
This is basically how western medicine operates in the US to begin with.
That's blatantly untrue. The primary criticism to Western medicine is that is has a high cost because doctors are afraid of being sued for malpractice and order lots of unnecessary and invasive tests to confirm any diagnosis before ordering a treatment. It's basically the exact opposite of what you say, which when taken to the extreme is also problematic.
What about the opioid crisis? What about the Sacklers? Was all of that fiction?
That is simply not true. What you are ascribing to personal gain is just protecting against personal loss.
Ordering an extra test or an extra drug is mostly a doctor covering themselves from potential lawsuit.
Ordering an extra test or an extra drug is mostly a doctor covering themselves from potential lawsuit.
You're delusional if you think physicians maliciously over-prescribing in the US is not a problem.
People are tremendously impacted, for good or ill, when prescribed pain medications, ADHD medications, anti-depressants, etc. Many of these people are harmed. Many of the doctors who caused them harm simply do not care.
People are tremendously impacted, for good or ill, when prescribed pain medications, ADHD medications, anti-depressants, etc. Many of these people are harmed. Many of the doctors who caused them harm simply do not care.
No kidding. The slightest issue with a medication, and every doctor I have seen starts foaming at the mouth, "I can prescribe X to help with that."
Then before you know it, you have to take a pill to take a pill. Then down the road, you have to take a pill to take a pill to take a pill.
I'm no medical Calvinist either, but I am not sure that polypharmacy should be the end goal if it can be avoided.
Then before you know it, you have to take a pill to take a pill. Then down the road, you have to take a pill to take a pill to take a pill.
I'm no medical Calvinist either, but I am not sure that polypharmacy should be the end goal if it can be avoided.
to be fair - I also met doctors who appeared to be competent and afaict didn't take advantage of my situation.
Sure, plenty out there exist. However, it's not always the doctor but hospital admins that tighten the screws.
Doctors may care about treating patients, but hospitals only care about one thing -- money. Pressuring doctors into pursuing unnecessary treatments are one of many ways hospitals try to increase revenue.
Doctors may care about treating patients, but hospitals only care about one thing -- money. Pressuring doctors into pursuing unnecessary treatments are one of many ways hospitals try to increase revenue.
Overprescription is a gigantic problem in the US. Most of that can be attributed to being overly careful, but many doctors are legitimately just prescribing treatments that are known to be unhelpful in expectation for personal gain. Knee and hip surgeries are common examples. They regularly degrade quality of life in recipients. We should be doing less, but then the surgeons that perform them would make less money.
So just your rental urgent care doc?
Double checking a book when figuring out treatment is not cheating, it is normal. Cheating for a doctor would be going with the feeling without double checking.
However, when learning for exam, it is cheating, because exams define minimum set of stuff that you should have in memory at that point.
However, when learning for exam, it is cheating, because exams define minimum set of stuff that you should have in memory at that point.
but cheating indicates a lack of moral integrity, which might seep into the aspect of how they treat their patients.
eventually, the cheaters won't know what to look up...
Verifying a measurement isn’t cheating. The word exists because it is memory externalized.
So basically "do unto others" but phrased needlessly complexly?
Kind of, but no. This explains the “needless” complexity well, but it is complex:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/The_Golden_Rule_Revisit...).
https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/The_Golden_Rule_Revisit...).
More like: “act like you’d like everyone to act”
Meaning, don’t be a cheater unless you want to live in a society of cheaters. Slightly different meaning from “do unto others” which is about interpersonal reciprocity.
Meaning, don’t be a cheater unless you want to live in a society of cheaters. Slightly different meaning from “do unto others” which is about interpersonal reciprocity.
The Golden Rule operates at the small scale of an iterated prisoner's dilemma where two parties are directly interacting.
Kant's wording scales up to include the emergent properties of a society which operated according to that rule.
The Golden Rule doesn't cover cases like, "Should I throw this trash in a lake." because there's no concrete person being "done unto". Kant's rule does: Would you want to live in a world where everyone threw trash in the lake? Probably not.
Kant's wording scales up to include the emergent properties of a society which operated according to that rule.
The Golden Rule doesn't cover cases like, "Should I throw this trash in a lake." because there's no concrete person being "done unto". Kant's rule does: Would you want to live in a world where everyone threw trash in the lake? Probably not.
Ok, then "be the change you wish to see in the world" but needlessly complex.
Whether the two statements are equivalent is a topic of some debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Differences_in_sit...
> Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others. On the other hand, in a critique of the consistency of Kant's writings, several authors have noted the "similarity" between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (See discussion at this link).
> Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others. On the other hand, in a critique of the consistency of Kant's writings, several authors have noted the "similarity" between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (See discussion at this link).
Needless discourse. Everyone understands there must be caveats to the Golden Rule. People aren't so literal in their moral frameworks to care about the exact wording. It's not charitable to say "what about this extremely contrived situation where the rule doesn't apply!"
The Golden Rule conveys 99% of the idea. No one cares about the remaining 1% except for people who have time to waste. We get it. We get the point Kant is trying to make.
The Golden Rule conveys 99% of the idea. No one cares about the remaining 1% except for people who have time to waste. We get it. We get the point Kant is trying to make.
Kant was notorious for writing in needlessly complex German
The golden rule with gilded edges
Unexpected Kant, and relevant. Nice!
"Would you go to a surgeon who cheated their way through medical school?"
"Would you go to a surgeon who cheated their way through medical school?"
My reading of the application of Kant's imperative to this is different to yours. The "universal law" here would be "cheating on a test for Amazon" rather than "cheating on any test for any job".
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35887145.
Many people reject Kant's ethical philosophy.
* developer attempts to pass something off as video lag, as he attempts to lip sync someone else's answer.
* developer had printed all the 'common' answers on the wall behind his computer, and would look up to them for reference as we were talking. Then the tape came off and covered him in a a paper stack overflow.
* the glorious mechanical keyboard, as they google for an answer.
* interviewed one person and had a different one show up.