Ask HN: Why does US allow hard tech interview questions if it bans IQ tests?
Tech interviewers often claim that they ask difficult questions to gain insight into how candidates think and how they handle reaching their limits.
However, this reasoning can sound like plausible deniability. How can you determine whether the real intent is to assess your IQ indirectly without explicitly administering an IQ test?
And why does the US permit this practice to continue if IQ tests are banned?
P.S. While IQ tests are not strictly banned in the US, using them opens up a company to potential lawsuits.
20 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 49.5 ms ] threadThen the interviews would really be about cultural fit and project interest, not trying to prove if the candidate _actually_ knows C, JavaScript, and Fortran77 well enough.
\end{slightly-off-topic}
Surely somebody has tried to turn this into a business? Not a certification, but a skill assessment that gives you a level. Even better is if there was an AI where you could provide snippets of your C code, JavaScript code, and Fortran77 code and figure out what level you need in order to effectively and meaningfully work with it.
If you're hiring rocket scientists, I'd bet you could ask 'em some tortuously difficult questions about rocket science. Or brain surgeons about brain surgery, or nuclear physicists about nuclear physics, or ...
The validity of IQ tests is debated and their history is checkered: they've been used by eugenicists and racists to support their views and statistically minorities under perform on them.
It's not hard to imagine someone purposefully writing an "IQ test" that's racially biased by focusing on things that wealthy white men know. An infamous example from the SAT in the 70's (and allegedly used later as well) that favors those familiar with rowing (aka: "crew"), a largely Ivy League sport:
RUNNER: MARATHON A) envoy: embassy B) martyr: massacre C) oarsman: regatta D) horse: stable
So it's fine if hard tech interviews are actually trying to assess your IQ, but if they're racially biased it's a problem.
The Oxbridge UK and US Ivy league rowing shell sport was largely confined to wealthy private schools and universities and uncommon outside those domains.
To "know" about the sport in detail you either had to take part, be adjacent, make a study of the behavioural activities of that class, or read a lot of Agatha Christie et al literature that referenced the sport.
Rowing shells has been part of the Summer Olympics since 1900, the argument can be made that the working class prior to widespread TV broadcasts didn't get a lot of Olympic exposure.
There were other ways of stumbling into an exposure but they weren't exactly commonplace.
Rowing a boat with oars was common across the globe.