>For each resume, I had a pretty good idea of how strong the engineer in question was, and I split resumes into two strength-based groups. To make this judgment call, I drew on my personal experience — most of the resumes came from candidates I placed (or tried to place) at top-tier startups. In these cases, I knew exactly how the engineer had done in technical interviews, and, more often than not, I had visibility into how they performed on the job afterwards. The remainder of resumes came from engineers I had worked with directly.
Does anyone else think this is a huge caveat getting thrown into a blender of numbers? Why does this person's opinion even matter? Why should I take this at face value? I'm not trying to say resumes are a good indicator of anything, but neither is this "study".
Does anyone else think this is a huge caveat getting thrown into a blender of numbers? Why does this person's opinion even matter? Why should I take this at face value? I'm not trying to say resumes are a good indicator of anything, but neither is this "study".