undefined | Better HN

0 pointslcnPylGDnU4H9OF2y ago0 comments

> intellectual dishonesty

This suggestion that a person who can adequately perform job duties could have even possibly cheated in their job interview is intellectually dishonest. If they had to cheat to get the job we should be looking at the interviewer. Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? Why is whatever-they-did even considered cheating?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

JohnFen2y ago· 2 in thread

> Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat?

If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat. If they're not, then they did. Either way, they're dishonest and that means they're not a desirable hire.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OFOP2y ago

> If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat.

(Just rewriting to specify my understanding: If the candidate was qualified, they didn't have to cheat even if they did cheat. They could have simply not cheated and been selected by the merits of their qualifications.)

This argument relies on the false premise that an interviewer will always accurately determine a candidate's qualifications. That a candidate is not qualified to pass an interview is not the same that a candidate is not qualified for the job for which they're being interviewed.

JohnFen2y ago

True, most interviewing processes are very imperfect by necessity and some qualified people will be mistakenly filtered out.

But also, there are usually several-to-many applicants for a position that are all qualified, and by necessity most of them won't get the position.

Additionally, technical qualifications is only a part of what an employer is looking for. There are other things that are at least equally important -- how well the applicant would fit into the team, how trustworthy they are, etc. It's about a lot more than just technical skillset.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse