很想去的地方面试没过_我们研究了学生在技术面试中的表现。他们上学的地方没关系。...-CSDN博客

很想去的地方面试没过

by Sam Jordan

通过山姆·乔丹

我们研究了学生在技术面试中的表现。他们上学的地方没关系。 (We studied how students performed in technical interviews. Where they went to school didn’t matter.)

interviewing.io is a platform where engineers practice technical interviewing anonymously. If things go well, they can unlock the ability to participate in real, but still anonymous, interviews with top companies like Twitch, Lyft and more.

面试.io是工程师匿名练习技术面试的平台。如果一切顺利，他们可以释放参与真实但仍匿名的Twitch，Lyft等顶级公司采访的能力。

Earlier this year, we launched an offering specifically for university students. It was intended to help level the playing field right at the start of people’s careers.

今年早些时候，我们推出了专门针对大学生的产品。它旨在帮助人们在职业生涯开始时就拥有一个公平的竞争环境。

问题 (The problem)

Here’s the sad truth: given the state of college recruiting today, if you haven’t attended one of a very few top schools, your chances of interacting with companies on campus are slim. It’s not fair, and it sucks, but university recruiting is still dominated by career fairs. Companies pragmatically choose to visit the same few schools every year. Despite the fact that the career fair is one of the most antiquated, biased forms of recruiting that there is, the format persists. This is likely because there doesn’t seem to be a better way to quickly connect with students at scale.

这是一个可悲的事实：鉴于当今大学的招聘状况，如果您没有上过极少数顶级学校之一，那么与校园公司互动的机会就很小。这不公平，而且很糟糕，但是大学招聘仍然由职业博览会主导。公司务实地选择每年访问相同的几所学校。尽管招聘会是目前最陈旧，最偏颇的招聘形式之一，但这种形式仍然存在。这可能是因为似乎没有更好的方法可以快速地与学生建立大规模联系。

So, despite the increasingly loud conversation about diversity, campus recruiting marches on, and companies keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

因此，尽管关于多样性的讨论日趋激烈，但校园招聘仍在继续，各公司仍在做同样的事情，期望得到不同的结果。

In a previous blog post, we explained why companies should stop courting students from the same five schools.

在上一篇博客文章中，我们解释了为什么公司应该停止向同一所五所学校的学生求爱。

Regardless of how important you think this idea is (for altruistic reasons, perhaps), you may still be skeptical about the value and practicality of broadening the college recruiting effort. You probably concede that it’s rational to visit top schools, given limited resources. Society is often willing to agree that there are perfectly qualified students coming out of non-top colleges, but they maintain that they’re relatively rare.

无论您认为这个想法有多重要(也许出于无私的原因)，您可能仍然对扩大大学招聘工作的价值和实用性持怀疑态度。您可能会承认，在资源有限的情况下，访问顶级学校是合理的。社会经常愿意同意，有一些完全合格的学生来自非顶尖大学，但他们坚称他们是相对罕见的。

We’re here to show you, with some nifty data from our university platform, that this is simply not true.

我们在这里用来自大学平台的一些漂亮数据向您展示，事实并非如此。

To be fair, this isn’t the first time we’ve looked at whether where you went to school matters. In a previous post, we found that taking Udacity and Coursera programming classes mattered way more than where you went to school. And way back in the day, one of our founders figured out that where you went to school didn’t matter at all — but that the number of typos and grammatical errors on your resume did.

公平地说，这不是我们第一次查看您上学的地方是否重要。在上一篇文章中，我们发现参加Udacity和Coursera编程课程比您上学的地方更重要。追溯到今天，我们的一位创始人发现您上学根本没有关系-但是简历上的错别字和语法错误确实没有关系。

So, what’s different this time? The big, exciting difference is that these prior analyses were focused mostly on engineers who had been working for at least a few years already. This made it possible to argue that a few years of work experience smoothes out any performance disparity that comes from having attended (or not attended) a top school.

那么，这次有什么不同？令人兴奋的巨大区别是，这些先前的分析主要集中于已经工作了至少几年的工程师。这使我们有可能辩称，几年的工作经验可以消除因上过(或不上过)顶级学校而造成的任何绩效差异。

In fact, the good people at Google found that while GPA didn’t really matter after a few years of work, it did matter for college students. So, we wanted to face this question head-on and look specifically at college juniors and seniors while they were still in school. Even more pragmatically, we wanted to see if companies limiting their hiring efforts to just top schools were getting higher caliber candidates.

实际上，谷歌的好人发现，虽然GPA经过几年的工作并没有什么大不了的，但对大学生来说确实很重要。因此，我们想直面这个问题，并专门针对大三和大三的学生，他们还在学校时。更加务实的是，我们想看看是否仅将招聘工作仅限于顶级学校的公司会获得更高才能的候选人。

Before delving into the numbers, here’s a quick rundown of how our university platform works and what kind of data we collect.

在深入研究数字之前，这里简要介绍一下大学平台的工作方式以及我们收集的数据类型。

设置 (The setup)

For students who want to practice on interviewing.io, the first step is a brief (~15-minute) coding assessment on Qualified to test basic programming competency. Students who pass this assessment (that is, those who are ready to code while another human being breathes down their necks) get to start booking practice interviews.

对于想在面试中练习的学生，第一步是对合格人员进行简短(约15分钟)的编码评估，以测试基本的编程能力。通过此评估的学生(即那些准备在另一个人喘口气的同时进行编码的人)可以开始预约练习面试。

When an interviewer and an interviewee match on our platform, they meet in a collaborative coding environment with voice, text chat, and a whiteboard and jump right into a technical question. Interview questions on the platform tend to fall into the category of what you’d encounter during a phone screen for a back-end software engineering role. Interviewers typically come from top companies like Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Airbnb, and more.

当访问者和被访问者在我们的平台上进行匹配时，他们将在带有语音，文本聊天和白板的协作编码环境中会面，并直接跳入技术问题。平台上的面试问题通常属于您在电话屏幕上担任后端软件工程职位时遇到的问题。采访者通常来自Google，Facebook，Dropbox，Airbnb等顶级公司。

After every interview, interviewers rate interviewees in a few different categories, including technical ability. Technical ability gets rated on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 is “poor” and 4 is “amazing!” On our platform, a score of 3 or above has generally meant that the person was skilled enough to move forward. You can see what our feedback form looks like below:

每次面试后，面试官都会在几个不同的类别中对受访者进行评分，包括技术能力。技术能力的等级为1到4，其中1表示“差”，4表示“惊人”！在我们的平台上，满分3分或更高，通常意味着该人足够熟练以向前迈进。您可以看到我们的反馈表如下所示：

On our platform, we’re fortunate to have thousands of students from all over the U.S., spanning over 200 universities. We thought this presented a unique opportunity to look at the relationship between school tier and interview performance for both juniors (interns) and seniors (new grads).

在我们的平台上，我们很幸运地拥有来自美国各地的数千名学生，横跨200所大学。我们认为这提供了一个难得的机会，可以查看初中(实习生)和年长者(新毕业生)的学业水平与面试成绩之间的关系。

To study this relationship, we first split schools into the following four tiers, based on rankings from U.S. News & World Report:

为了研究这种关系，我们首先根据《美国新闻与世界报道》的排名将学校分为以下四个等级：

“Elite” schools (like MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, UC-Berkeley)
“精英”学校(如麻省理工学院，斯坦福大学，卡内基·梅隆大学，加州大学伯克利分校)
Top 15 schools (not including top tier, like University of Wisconsin, Cornell, Columbia)
排名前15的学校(不包括顶级大学，如威斯康星大学，康奈尔大学，哥伦比亚分校)
Top 50 schools (not including top 15, like Ohio State University, NYU, Arizona State University)
排名前50的学校(不包括排名前15的俄亥俄州立大学，纽约大学，亚利桑那州立大学)
The rest (like Michigan State, Vanderbilt University, Northeastern University, UC-Santa Barbara)
其余的人(如密歇根州立大学，范德比尔特大学，东北大学，加州大学圣塔芭芭拉分校)

Then, we ran some statistical significance testing on interview scores vs. school tier to see if school tier mattered for both interns (college juniors) and new grads (college seniors). Our sample comprised a set of roughly 1,000 students.

然后，我们针对面试成绩与学校级别进行了一些统计显着性测试，以了解学校级别对实习生(大三学生)和新毕业生(大四学生)是否都重要。我们的样本包括大约1000名学生。

学校和面试成绩有关系吗？ (Does school have anything to do with interview performance?)

In the graphs below, you can see technical score distributions for interviews with students in each of the four school tiers (see legend). As you recall from above, each interview is scored on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 is the worst and 4 is the best.

在下面的图形中，您可以看到四个学校层中每个层的学生访谈的技术得分分布(请参见图例)。就像您从上面回忆的那样，每个面试的得分都是1到4，其中1是最差的，4是最好的。

First, the juniors:

首先，大三：

And then, the seniors:

然后，老年人：

What’s pretty startling is that the shape of these distributions, for both juniors and seniors, is remarkably similar. Indeed, statistical significance testing revealed no difference between students of any tier when it came to interview performance.

令人吃惊的是，对于初中和高年级，这些分布的形状非常相似。确实，统计学显着性测试显示，在面试表现方面，任何级别的学生之间都没有差异。

Just to note: of course, this hinges on everyone completing a quick 15-minute coding challenge first, to ensure they’re ready for synchronous technical interviews. We’re excited about this because companies can replicate this step in their process as well!

请注意：当然，这取决于每个人都首先完成15分钟的快速编码挑战，以确保他们准备好进行同步技术面试。我们对此感到很兴奋，因为公司也可以在其过程中复制这一步骤！

What this means is that top-tier students are achieving the same results as those in “no-name” schools. So the question becomes: if the students are comparable in skill, why are companies spending egregious amounts of money attracting only a subset of them?

这意味着顶级学生正在取得与“无名”学校相同的成绩。因此，问题就变成了：如果学生的技术水平相当，为什么公司花费巨额资金来吸引他们的一部分呢？

好的，那么公司缺少什么呢？ (Okay, so what are companies missing?)

Besides missing out on great, cheaper-to-acquire future employees, companies are missing out on an opportunity to save time and money. Right now, a ridiculous amount of money is being spent on university recruiting. We’ve previously cited the $18k price tag just for entry to the MIT career fair. In a study done by Lauren Rivera through the Harvard Business Review, she reveals that one firm budgeted nearly 1 million dollars just for social recruiting events on a single campus.

除了错过优秀，便宜的未来员工外，公司还错过了节省时间和金钱的机会。眼下，可贵的钱正花在大学招聘上。之前我们曾提到$ 18k的价格只是为了参加MIT职业博览会。在劳伦·里维拉(Lauren Rivera)通过《哈佛商业评论》所做的一项研究中，她透露，一家公司仅在一个校园内就为社交招聘活动预算了近100万美元。

The higher price tag of these events also means that it makes even less sense for smaller companies or startups to try and compete with high-profile, high-profit tech giants. Most of the top schools that are being heavily pursued already have enough recruiters vying for their students. Unwittingly, this pursuit seems to run contrary to most companies’ desire for high diversity and long-term sustainable growth.

这些活动的高昂价格也意味着，较小的公司或初创企业尝试与知名度高，利润高的技术巨头竞争将变得毫无意义。大多数受到热烈追捧的顶级学校已经有足够的招聘人员在争夺学生。不知不觉中，这种追求似乎与大多数公司对高度多样化和长期可持续增长的渴望背道而驰。

Even when companies do believe that talent is evenly distributed across school tiers, there are still reasons why companies might recruit at top schools. There are other factors that help elevate certain schools in a recruiter’s mind. There are long-standing company-school relationships (for example, the number of alumni who work at the company currently). There are signaling effects, too — companies get Silicon Valley bonus points by saying their eng team is comprised of a bunch of ex-Stanford, ex-MIT ex-and so on students.

即使公司确实相信人才在各个学校之间平均分配，也仍然有理由选择公司在顶级学校招聘人才。还有其他因素可以帮助提升招聘人员心目中的某些学校。公司与学校之间存在着长期的关系(例如，目前在公司工作的校友数量)。信号效应也产生了信号-公司通过说他们的英语团队由前斯坦福大学，前麻省理工学院的前生组成，因此获得了硅谷奖励积分。

关于选择偏见的简短说明 (A quick word about selection bias)

Since this post appeared on Hacker News, there’s been some loud, legitimate discussion about how the pool of students on interviewing.io may not be representative of the population at large. Indeed we do have a self-selected pool of students who decided to practice interviewing.

自从该帖子出现在《黑客新闻》上以来，就面试中的学生群体可能无法代表整个人群的问题进行了大声，合法的讨论。实际上，我们确实有一群自选的学生，他们决定练习面试。

Certainly, all the blog posts we publish are subject to this (very valid) line of criticism, as is this post in particular.

当然，我们发布的所有博客文章都受到(非常有效)批评的批评，尤其是这篇文章。

As such, selection bias in our user pool might mean that 1) we’re getting only the worst students from top schools (because, presumably, the best ones don’t need the practice), or 2) we’re getting only the best/most motivated students from non-top schools — or both.

因此，我们用户群中的选择偏见可能意味着1)我们只从顶级学校招收最差的学生(因为，大概最好的学生不需要这种做法)，或2)我们只得到了来自非顶尖学校的最佳/最有动力的学生-或两者兼而有之。

Any subset of these results is entirely possible, but there are few reasons why we believe that what we’ve published here might hold truth regardless.

这些结果的任何子集都是完全可能的，但是我们几乎没有理由相信我们在这里发布的内容可能成立。

First of all, in our experience, regardless of their background or pedigree, everyone is scared of technical interviewing. Case in point: before we started working on interviewing.io, we didn’t really have a product yet. So before investing a lot of time and heartache into this questionable undertaking, we wanted to test the waters to see if interview practice was something engineers really wanted — and more so, who these engineers that wanted practice were.

首先，根据我们的经验，无论他们的背景或血统如何，每个人都害怕进行技术面试。恰当的例子：在我们开始采访I.之前，我们还没有真正的产品。因此，在将大量时间和心血投入到这项可疑的工作之前，我们想测试一下水准，看看面试实践是否真的是工程师真正想要的—更何况这些想要实践的工程师是谁。

So, we put up a pretty mediocre landing page on Hacker News…and got something like 7,000 signups on the first day. Of these 7,000 signups, roughly 25% were senior (4+ years of experience) engineers from companies like Google and Facebook. Now, this isn’t to say that they’re necessarily the best engineers out there, but it does suggest that the engineers the market seems to value the most still needed our services.

因此，我们在Hacker News上做了一个相当平庸的登陆页面……第一天就有7,000个注册。在这7,000个注册中，大约25％是来自Google和Facebook等公司的高级工程师(有4年以上的经验)。现在，这并不是说他们一定是那里最好的工程师，但这确实表明市场上的工程师似乎最看重我们仍然需要的服务。

Another data point comes from one of our founders. Every year, Aline does a guest lecture on job search preparedness for a technical communication course at MIT. This course is one way to fulfill the computer science major communication requirement, so enrollment tends to span the gamut of computer science students. Before every lecture, she sends out a survey asking students what their biggest pain points are in preparing for their job search. Every year, trepidation about technical interviewing is either at the top of the list of 2nd from the top.

另一个数据点来自我们的一位创始人。每年，Aline都会为MIT的技术交流课程做一次关于求职准备的客座演讲。本课程是满足计算机科学专业交流要求的一种方法，因此，入学人数往往会跨越计算机科学专业的学生。在每次演讲之前，她都会进行调查，询问学生在准备工作时最大的痛点是什么。每年，对技术面试的恐惧都排在第二位。

And though this doesn’t directly address the issue of whether we’re only getting the “best of the worst or the worst of the best” (and I hope the above has convinced you there’s more to it than that), here’s the distribution of school tiers among our users. I expect it mirrors the kinds of distributions companies see in their student applicant pool as well:

尽管这并不能直接解决我们是否只得到“最坏的最好的还是最好的最坏的”(我希望以上内容已经使您相信还有更多的问题)，但这是分布用户中的学校层数。我希望它也能反映出公司在学生申请者名单中看到的各种分布：

那么公司可以做什么？ (So what can companies do?)

Companies may never stop recruiting at top-tier schools entirely. But they ought to at least include schools outside of that very small circle in the search for future employees.

公司可能永远不会完全停止在一流学校招募人才。但是，在寻找未来的员工时，他们至少应该包括这个很小圈子之外的学校。

The end result of the data is the same: for good engineers, the school they attended means a lot less than we think. The time and money that companies spend to compete for candidates within the same select few schools would be better spent creating opportunities that include everyone. They could also develop tools to vet students more fairly and efficiently.

数据的最终结果是相同的：对于优秀的工程师来说，他们上的学校意味着比我们想象的要少得多的东西。公司花时间和金钱在同一所选定的少数几所学校中竞争候选人，将更好地花费在创造机会上，让所有人都参与其中。他们还可以开发工具来更公平有效地审查学生。

As you saw above, we used a 15-minute coding assessment to cull our inbound student flow, and just a short challenge leveled the playing field between students from all walks of life. At the very least, we’d recommend employers do the same thing in their process. But, of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t suggest one other thing.

正如您在上面看到的，我们使用了15分钟的编码评估来筛选我们的入站学生流，只是一个简短的挑战就为各行各业的学生之间的公平竞争提供了条件。至少，我们建议雇主在他们的过程中做同样的事情。但是，当然，如果我们不提出其他建议，我们将被撤职。

At interviewing.io, we’ve proudly built a platform that grants the best-performing students access to top employers, no matter where they went to school or where they come from. Our university program, in particular, allows us to grant companies the privilege to reach an exponentially larger pool of students, for the same cost of attending one or two career fairs at top target schools.

在采访中，我们自豪地建立了一个平台，该平台可以使表现最佳的学生访问顶级雇主，无论他们在哪里上学或来自哪里。尤其是我们的大学课程，使我们可以授予公司特权，以达到成倍增长的学生人数，而参加顶级目标学校的一两次职业招聘会的费用相同。

Want diverse, top talent without the chase? Sign up to be an employer on our university platform!

想要没有追逐的多元化，顶尖人才吗？注册成为我们大学平台上的雇主！