This is a very interesting approach, I’ve seen some competitors who do this in the learning/course space as well. I’ve also done a lot of interviews from both sides of the table.
My question is around the grading examples. How do you automatically determine Functionality is Senior - Weak or Commit History is Intermediate - Strong?
I find these to be quite subjective and better understood as a whole for any given candidate. The grading mechanism provides a false sense of being unbiased, and further dehumanizes the process.
> Every metric we measure is numeric, and every test is deterministic. As a result, you can make hiring decisions based purely on merit.
I fully disagree with this for hiring, unless you’re looking for machines, not humans. Measuring things automatically does not result in purity of bias.
My question is around the grading examples. How do you automatically determine Functionality is Senior - Weak or Commit History is Intermediate - Strong?
I find these to be quite subjective and better understood as a whole for any given candidate. The grading mechanism provides a false sense of being unbiased, and further dehumanizes the process.
> Every metric we measure is numeric, and every test is deterministic. As a result, you can make hiring decisions based purely on merit.
I fully disagree with this for hiring, unless you’re looking for machines, not humans. Measuring things automatically does not result in purity of bias.