Caller: “My email isn’t working!”

Me: “Okay, what seems to be the problem?”

Caller: “I already said, my email isn’t working!”

Me: “Okay, so is it not sending email, or is it not opening?”

Caller: “It’s not sending email. This is pathetic! I don’t have
time for this!”

Me: “I am here to help you. Does it say ‘connected’ at the lower right hand of the screen?”

Caller: “I don’t know, this isn’t my job! It’s yours, so fix it!”

Me: “I am trying to, sir, but I will need your help with fixing this issue remotely.”

Caller: “No, that’s not what I get paid to do. I am an accountant! I’m not supposed to know how to use a computer!”

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, CA (1987)

* Man scored higher than woman on job related-test
* Woman hired
* Man sued because he wasn’t hired
* Court ruled in favor of the woman because man didn’t outscore her by much
o implies that if roughly a tie, okay to use minority status as tie-breaker
o not clear about how close is close enough

Surely though any test that can reveal a genuine, vocational advantage to one applicant over another can only be a good thing.

On the other hand, I love how there are seniors computer classes. It’s never too late to learn. I think literacy testing is a great idea, especially for receptionist / secretarial jobs.

@Magua – So rejecting an applicant for a job because they don’t have experience using a particular tool/piece of software/protocol when another applicant does have that experience is is okay, but testing for these differences is illegal?

I gotta tell you, these people have some serious balls filing lawsuits like that.

Connecticut v. Teal (1982) – Basically it was a case where there was ‘adverse’ effect on the tests on a multi screening process. There was no such screening later.

So in real terms what it meant was that 100 candidates applied, 50 got through, the 50 that didn’t were impacted unfairly by the selection tests, and then afterwards the remaining 50 whom got through were then deemed as not required any further adverse tests.
Sounds fair to me, in many ways, but it was deemed illegal not to have the same structure and allowance per each stage of the process. Unfortunately, in the day of sueing everyone who breathes, this is easily won if you can prove it discriminates even slightly about your ability.
Some of the evidence to suggest it was unfair in that trial was that some of the candidates had not had training in the “use of certain experience”.. i take that to mean in lawyer terms the equipment used also. So any ‘test’ of their skills is unjust and automatically discounted their relevent skills because of smaller details.

I’ll dig some more out on it too. Thanks Dan for getting me thinking about all this the other day

Before I got an interview in person I was given an assignment to code and demonstrate to them. Once I’d done this I had an interview over the phone, followed by another over AOL Instant Messenger (very unusual) that involved typing out answers to various programming questions posed to me.

Once I’d passed those I was called in for two interviews at the office in Mountain View (down the road from Google). In the first one I was asked how I would solve a programming problem. In the second interview I was asked to solve the same programming problem. I made the mistake of mentioning that I’d already done it and so I was asked a much more theoretical question (I’ll paste it below).

I passed all of these tests and still ended up not getting the job because of a US Visa issue, but the tests were an extremely important part of the interview process. Without passing these there would be very little in hiring a person. I can only see good things coming out of testing people before hiring them. It should be standard for everyone. Definitely not on the level I’ve detailed of my own experience, but certainly there should be _something_ done to check this person can send an email.

– Question I was asked at Tellme –
Assume that two identical robots land from two different flights with the help of parachutes (at different points) on an infinite line.

Each robot leaves its parachute on landing and goes in search of the other robot. The problem is to write one program which will be executed by _both_ the robots that makes it possible for the robots to meet. You don’t know which way the other robot was dropped on the line, and they both move at the same speed.

You have the following instructions at your disposal to write the program:
1) Step L – makes the robot take one step towards left
2) Step R – makes the robot take one step towards right
3) goto label – jump to a label or subroutine containing instructions
4) if parachute – instruction, where |parachute| is a boolean which will be true when a robot senses a parachute. It will be true as long as the robot is near it. The moment it takes a step towards left or right after sensing it, then P will become false.

Can you write a program that makes the robots meet.
—-