大二上学数据结构和操作系统
by Aline Lerner
通过艾琳·勒纳(Aline Lerner)
毕业后的工作比上学要重要得多。 这是数据。 (What you do after you graduate matters way more than where you went to school. Here’s the data.)
The first blog post I published that got any real attention was called “Lessons from a year’s worth of hiring data.” It was my attempt to understand what attributes of someone’s resume actually mattered for getting a software engineering job. As it turned out, where someone went to school didn’t matter at all. By far and away, the strongest signal came from the number of typos and grammatical errors on their resume.
我发表的第一篇引起真正关注的博客文章称为“ 从一年的招聘数据中学到的教训 ”。 我试图了解某人的简历的哪些属性实际上对获得软件工程职位至关重要。 事实证明，某人上学的地方根本没有关系。 迄今为止，最强烈的信号来自简历上的错别字和语法错误。
Since then, I’ve discovered (and written about) how useless resumes are. But ever since writing that first post, I’ve been itching to do something similar with our platform’s data.
从那时起，我发现(并写了) 无用的履历表 。 但是自从写了第一篇文章以来，我一直渴望对我们平台的数据做类似的事情。
For context, interviewing.io is a platform where people can practice technical interviewing anonymously and, in the process, find jobs.
就上下文而言，inceptions.io是一个平台，人们可以在其中匿名进行技术面试，并在此过程中找到工作。
If you do well in practice interviews, and you advance to guaranteed (and anonymous!) technical interviews with companies like Uber, Twitch, and Lyft.
如果您在实践面试中做得很好，并且可以进行对Uber，Twitch和Lyft等公司的有保证的(和匿名的)技术面试。
Over the course of our existence, we’ve amassed performance data from thousands of real and practice interviews. Data from these interviews sets us up nicely to look at what signals from an interviewee’s background might matter when it comes to performance.
在我们的生存过程中，我们已经从成千上万次实际和实践访谈中收集了绩效数据。 这些访谈的数据使我们很好地了解了来自受访者背景的哪些信号可能会对绩效产生影响。
首先，我们的数据集的一些背景 (First, some background on our dataset)
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 at a phone screen for a back-end software engineering role. Interviewers typically come from a mix of large companies like Google, Facebook, and Uber, as well as engineering-focused startups like Asana, Mattermark, and KeepSafe.
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遇到的后端软件工程角色的类别。 采访者通常来自Google，Facebook和Uber等大型公司，以及像Asana，Mattermark和KeepSafe这样的专注于工程的初创公司。
After every interview, interviewers rate interviewees on a few different dimensions, 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 good 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方面对受访者进行评分，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分或以上通常意味着该人足够优秀，可以向前迈进。 您可以看到我们的反馈表如下所示：
To run the analysis for this post, we cross-referenced interviewees’ average technical scores (circled in red in the feedback form above) with these attributes to see which ones mattered most:
为了对这篇文章进行分析，我们将受访者的平均技术得分(在上面的反馈表中用红色圆圈圈出)与这些属性进行交叉引用，以查看最重要的属性：
- Attended a top computer science school 参加了顶尖的计算机科学学校
- Worked at a top company 在顶级公司工作
- Took classes on Udacity or Coursera 在Udacity或Coursera上课
- Founded a startup 创立一家初创公司
- Master’s degree 硕士
- Years of experience 多年经验
Of all of these, only 3 attributes emerged as statistically significant: top school, top company, and classes on Udacity/Coursera. Apparently, as the fine gentlemen of Metallica once said, nothing else matters.
在所有这些属性中，只有3个具有统计显着性的属性出现了： 顶级学校，顶级公司和Udacity / Coursera的课程。 显然，正如Metallica先生们所说的那样，其他任何事情都没有关系。
In the graph below, you can see the effect size of each of the significant attributes (attributes that didn’t achieve statistical significance don’t have bars):
在下图中，您可以看到每个重要属性的效果大小 (未达到统计显着性的属性没有竖线)：
As I said at the outset, these results were quite surprising.
正如我在一开始所说的那样，这些结果令人惊讶。
Let’s take a stab at explaining each of these outcomes.
让我们来解释一下这些结果。
顶尖学校和顶尖公司 (Top School and Top Company)
Going into this, I expected top company to matter, but not top school. The company thing makes sense — you’re selecting people who’ve successfully been through at least one interview gauntlet, so the odds of them succeeding at future interviews should be higher.
谈到这一点，我希望顶尖的公司有关系，但顶尖的学校却没有。 公司的事情是有道理的-您选择的是至少成功通过一次面试的人，因此他们将来成功面试的几率应该更高。
Top school is a bit more muddy, and it was indeed the least impactful of the significant attributes.
顶级学校有点混乱，的确是重要属性中影响最小的。
Why did schooling matter in this iteration of the data but didn’t matter when I was looking at resumes? I expect the answer lies in the disparity between performance in an isolated technical phone screen versus what happens when a candidate actually goes on site.
为什么在这个数据迭代中上学很重要，但是当我查看简历时却没有关系？ 我希望答案就在于隔离的技术电话屏幕中的性能与候选人实际上岗时会发生的事情之间的差异。
With the right preparation, the technical phone interview is manageable. Top schools often have rigorous algorithms classes and a culture of preparing for technical phone screens.
通过正确的准备，技术电话面试是可管理的。 顶尖的学校通常设有严格的算法课程和为技术电话屏幕做准备的文化。
To see why this culture matters and how it might create an unfair advantage for those immersed in it, see my post about how we need to rethink the technical interview. Whether passing an algorithmic technical phone screen actually means you’re a great engineer is another matter entirely and hopefully the subject of a future post.
要了解这种文化为何重要以及如何为沉浸其中的人们带来不公平的优势，请参阅我的帖子，了解我们需要如何重新思考技术面试 。 通过算法电话屏幕实际上是否意味着您是一名出色的工程师，这完全是另一回事，并希望在以后的帖子中成为主题。
Udacity / Coursera (Udacity/Coursera)
That online course participation (Udacity and Coursera in particular, as those were the ones interviewing.io users gravitated to most) mattered as much as it did — and mattering way more than pedigree — was probably the most surprising finding here, and so it merited some additional digging.
在线课程的参与(尤其是Udacity和Coursera，因为它们是受访者最喜欢的那些)最重要，而且比谱系更重要，在这里可能是最令人惊讶的发现，因此值得一些额外的挖掘。
In particular, I was curious about the interplay between online courses and top schools. So I partitioned online course participants into people who had attended top schools versus people who hadn’t. When I did that, something startling emerged.
我尤其对在线课程和顶尖学校之间的相互作用感到好奇。 因此，我将在线课程的参与者分为参加过顶级学校的人和没有参加过高级学校的人。 当我这样做时，出现了一些惊人的事情。
For people who attended top schools, completing Udacity or Coursera courses didn’t appear to matter. But for people who did not attend top schools, the effect of taking these online courses was huge. So huge, in fact, that it dominated the board.
对于上过顶尖学校的人来说，完成Udacity或Coursera课程似乎并不重要。 但是对于那些没有上过顶尖学校的人来说，参加这些在线课程的效果是巨大的。 实际上如此之大，以至于它统治了董事会。
Moreover, interviewees who attended top schools performed significantly worse than interviewees who had not attended top schools, but had taken a Udacity or Coursera course.
此外， 就读顶级学校的受访者的表现明显差于未曾就读顶级学校但参加了Udacity或Coursera课程的受访者。
So, what does this mean? Of course (as you’re probably thinking to yourself while you read this), correlation doesn’t imply causation.
那么这是什么意思？ 当然(正如您在阅读本文时可能正在思考的那样)，相关性并不表示因果关系。
Online courses aren’t necessarily some magic pill.
在线课程并不一定是万能药。
But I suspect that people who gravitate toward online courses — and especially those who might have a chip on their shoulder about their undergrad pedigree, who might drink from the online course firehose — already tend to be abnormally driven.
但是我怀疑那些偏向在线课程的人，尤其是那些可能对自己的本科系谱系持怀疑态度，可能会从在线课程中喝酒的人，已经被异常驱使了。
But, even with that, I’d be hard pressed to say that completing great online computer science classes isn’t going to help you become a better interviewee — especially if you didn’t have the benefit of a rigorous algorithms class up until then.
但是，尽管如此，我很难说完成出色的在线计算机科学课程不会帮助您成为更好的面试者-尤其是如果您直到那时还没有严格的算法课程的好处。
Indeed, a lot of the courses we saw people take focused on algorithms, so it’s no surprise that supplementing your preparation with courses like this could be tremendously useful.
确实，我们看到的许多课程都是针对算法的，因此用这样的课程补充您的准备工作可能会非常有用也就不足为奇了。
Some of the most popular courses we saw were:
我们看到的一些最受欢迎的课程是：
UdacityDesign of Computer ProgramsIntro to AlgorithmsComputability, Complexity & Algorithms
算法 可计算性，复杂性和算法 简介 的计算机程序的 Udacity 设计
CourseraAlgorithms SpecializationFunctional Programming Principles in ScalaMachine LearningAlgorithms on Graphs
图上 Scala 机器学习 算法中的 Coursera 算法专业化 功能编程原理
创始人身份 (Founder Status)
Having been a founder didn’t matter at all when it came to technical interview performance.
成为创始人对于技术面试表现一点都不重要。
This, too, isn’t that surprising. The things that make one a good founder aren’t necessarily the things that make one a good engineer. And if you just came out of running a startup and are looking to get back into an individual contributor role, odds are that your interview skills will be a bit rusty.
这也不足为奇。 使一个人成为一个好的创始人的东西不一定使一个人成为一个好的工程师的东西。 而且，如果您刚从创办初创公司起，并希望重新成为个人贡献者，那么您的面试技巧可能会有些生疏。
This is also true of folks who’ve been in industry but haven’t gone through technical interviews in a while, as you’ll see below.
正如您将在下面看到的那样，对于从事过行业但一段时间没有经过技术面试的人们来说，也是如此。
硕士学位和多年经验 (Master’s Degree and Years of Experience)
No surprises here. I’ve ranted quite a bit about the disutility of master’s degrees, so I won’t belabor the point.
这里没有惊喜。 我对硕士学位的无用性大加指责，所以我不会太在意这一点。
Years of experience, too, shouldn’t be that surprising. For context, our average user has about 5 years of experience, with most having between 2 and 10.
多年的经验也就不足为奇了。 就上下文而言，我们的普通用户大约有5年的经验，大多数经验是2到10。
I think we’ve all anecdotally observed that the time spent away from your schooling doesn’t do you any favors when it comes to interview prep.
我认为我们所有人都曾观察到，在接受面试准备时，从学校度过的时间并不会给您带来任何好处。
You can see a scatter plot of interview performance versus years of experience below, as well as my attempt to fit a line through it (as you can see, the R² is piss poor, meaning that there’s no statistically relevant relationship to speak of).
您可以在下面看到采访绩效与多年工作经验的散点图，以及我试图通过它来拟合一条线的情况(如您所见，R²很差，这意味着没有统计学上的相关关系)。
总结思想 (Closing thoughts)
If you know me, or have read some of my writing before, you’ll recall that I’ve been loudly opposed to the concept of pedigree as a useful hiring signal. With that in mind, I feel like I must clearly acknowledge that the results we found this time run counter to my stance.
如果您认识我，或者以前看过我的一些文章，您会记得我一直强烈反对将血统书的概念作为有用的招聘信号。 考虑到这一点，我觉得我必须明确承认，这次我们发现的结果与我的立场背道而驰。
But that’s the whole point, isn’t it? You live, you get some data, you make some graphs, you learn, you make new graphs, and you adjust.
但这就是重点，不是吗？ 生活，获得一些数据，制作一些图表，学习，制作新图表并进行调整。
Even with this new data, I’m excited to see that what mattered way more than pedigree was the actions people took to better themselves — in this case, rounding out their existing knowledge with online courses — regardless of their background.
即使有了这些新数据，我也很高兴地看到，与血统相比，更重要的是人们为改善自己而采取的行动-在这种情况下，不考虑背景如何，都通过在线课程完善了现有知识。
Most importantly, these findings have done nothing to change interviewing.io’s core mission. We’re creating an efficient and meritocratic way for candidates and companies to find each other. As long as you can code, we couldn’t care less about who you are or where you come from.
最重要的是，这些调查结果并没有改变访谈io的核心使命。 我们正在为求职者和公司创建一种高效，精英的方式，以使彼此找到彼此。 只要您能编码，我们就不会在乎您是谁或来自哪里。
In our ideal world, all these conversations about which proxies matter more than others would be moot non-starters, because coding ability would stand for, well, coding ability. And that’s the world we’re building.
在我们理想的世界中，所有关于哪些代理比其他代理更重要的对话将毫无意义，因为编码能力将代表编码能力。 这就是我们正在建立的世界。
Want to become awesome at technical interviews and land your next job in the process? Join interviewing.io!
想要在技术面试中变得很棒，并在此过程中找到下一份工作吗？ 参加访谈吧！
大二上学数据结构和操作系统
扫一扫
3401
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
