Should asking content questions in technical interviews be illegal?

One could argue that such content questions discriminates against certain groups of people without supporting research showing such memorizing ability is necessary for programming.

So should such questions be illegal in technical interviews --- at least until the supporting research is done and widely accepted?

Perhaps one reason why they ask puzzle type questions is because they don't care so much about what content you know. You can learn on the job after all if you are smart.

But that still ignores the issue about whether puzzle solving and programming ability are highly correlated.

Probably moreso than most other things you could evaluate, including programming itself. I'd argue that puzzle-solving is more closely related to what you actually do as a developer than writing "reverse a string in-place" exercises in C. After all, what are programming problems besides puzzles?

(Assuming you're working at a firm that actually develops software, instead of handing a template to some code-monkeys and telling them to use off-the-shelf Microsoft or Java widgets and assemble them into something vaguely resemblant. But the latter firms don't really use puzzles anyway. They hire based on degrees and certifications.)

The point is this is just a guess. You need scientific experiments to demonstrate this -- otherwise, it's potentially illegal to use puzzles in interviews.

A guess seems like a reasonable standard of proof, the experiment is when you hire them for a month to see if they can do the job. If that's illegal then the laws are broken.

What defines these "certain groups" of people and why should anyone be forced to employ them?

If you think that they'd make superior employees, nothing is stopping you from employing them. If you're correct, that will give you a significant advantage over employers who make the wrong choice. Why aren't you willing to make money from being correct?

There are anti-discrimination laws in place. The question is with respect to those laws and whether they are violated by puzzles.

In a world without such laws, what you say applies.

The answer is 'no'. Those laws are not violated by puzzles.

The whole point of a job interview is discrimination.

Why the interest in "law" when you can drive those evil companies out of biz AND make lots of money if you're right and they're wrong?

Should any questions be illegal? We should be able to hire anyone we want for whatever reasons. The market should then decide whether the questions were right or wrong.

From my perspective it is less about the actual answer and more about the process you use to get there.

Now granted I have read a few studies indicating that it is possible to derive puzzles in such a way that to weed out certain demographics. One could argue the same thing based on what college someone went to and when based on the published numbers from that school and logical analysis. Should asking what college you went to and when be illegal?

As it stands right now, "puzzle solving ineptness" is not one of the groups of people protected by the equal opportunity act.

But it might be that older people are worse at these sorts of puzzles in which case this would result in age discrimination.

Other groups may be affected as well.

For hiring in the U.S., discrimination is legal if it's done on the basis of what are called "bona fide occupational qualifications". This is the legal principle that allows, say, police departments to reject people who don't meet physical standards, or modeling agencies to reject people just because they're ugly.

You could make a good case that success on puzzle questions has a decent correlation with success as a programmer--that is, the ability to solve puzzles is probably a BFOQ for programmers, so it's safe from a legal standpoint.

Any selection procedure can be said to "discriminate" against certain groups of people. Do people need a certain height and weight to be good soldiers? Many army recruitment systems have minimum requirements. Do you need an Ivy LeagueMBA to be a highly paid consultant at McKinsey?

Questions like these often are about the questioner than anything else. If I were to ask "Should it be illegal for McKinsey to demand an MBA from Harvard before hiring people?" , it probably reveals more about my attitudes than anything else.

 What made you consider such  an idea?  Any negative experiences with puzles in an interview? I am genuinely curious.

Although I come from academic background, I have lost all faith in computer science. IMO, people are focusing on all the wrong things. Web 2.0 is a step in the right direction. It's much more fun and creative than academia ever was.

As you might guess, I don't think much of technical interviews, especially the ones with puzzles.

I have to say, I'm inspired by pg's whole idea that the ultimate test of what you bring to society is what you can think up and build, and that barriers to your doing just exactly that, have fallen much lower. I'm still freakin' abuzz over that, together with the fact that there will probably soon be YC imitators, and that YC itself will expand, to make that a reality. Currently I'm contemplating 'which job to do, which would stall my career the least' (I do need one for the short term), but in the medium term even, it may be possible to work on exciting, possibility-busting ideas. Being that life is short, I can't get over the possibility that this'll be the new modus operandi.

This would be at the level of what the early internet hippies promised, way back in the beginning :)

It is illegal to administer an IQ test as part of the hiring process. Since IQ is the #1 predictor of future job performance (See The Bell Curve), then I imagine puzzle questions are just about the next best thing.

IBM did exactly that when I interviewed with them in 1998. They give you a battery of tests including:

A timed test of where you have to do a lot of boring math problems like long-multiplication and division of large sums. I hate boring math, but figured I didn't want to be an accountant, so I didn't stress out over it.

Another timed test where you're given character sequences, and you have to guess what comes next. That was the one all us hackers in the group of interviewees were bragging about after the test. "Oh yeah? I got through all but the last two!", that sort of thing.

We were told our results were not a condition of employment (though this was during the interview process) and they would be kept in our employee profiles, but we couldn't ever find out how we did.

Do you have any sources on that? What if you administer an IQ test, but you call it something else?

The Xobni guys ask a great puzzle if you interview with them. The puzzle makes the whole interview process worthwhile. I hope they are still asking that puzzle ;-)

not only is puzzle/quiz/aptitude testing the future of job applications... I'd throw in _conditioning_ (like the Suk doctors in Dune or the current military). Talent will be rewarded much more when money isn't wasted on less efficient, competent, dedicated and honorable people.

This would be a good question for 'Regulatory Bureaucrat News'.

Or perhaps 'Vexatious Litigator News'.

But for 'Hacker News', not so much.

What should be illegal is silently judging the "coolness" or "good looks" or "charisma" of a candidate. Because, in the real world, that's usually what gets you the job.

discrimination should be legal. forcing you to hire someone you don't want to isn't freedom.

On discrimination laws:

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

You'll see a number of groups identified at various points. Lists of them usually start with something like "race, color, religion..." These are known as 'suspect classifications' and discrimination is often not possible except where a suspect class is involved.

Suspect classes themselves have been defined by the Supreme Court via 14th amendment rulings, and include specific criteria that determine what level of scrutiny is applied to the law. If a victim is not a member of a suspect class, then it will be very difficult to prove discrimination. (Though it can happen, for example Gay Marriage in MA)

Companies have a great deal of freedom to 'discriminate'(defined in global scope) in hiring practices, though their ability to 'discriminate'(defined in legal scope) is limited for good reason.

(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I also don't think puzzle tests should count as discrimination.)

Most people think discrimination is bad. I agree with them. But just because something is bad does not mean that it's correct to make a law against it. The people who discriminate disagree about whether discrimination is a good or bad idea.

Disagreement should not be dealt with by force, it should be dealt with by persuasion, (and with competition). The only exception is when force would happen no matter what we do (ie, they want to assault or defraud someone, then force takes place whether we stop them or not).

When people want to peacefully do things we think are bad, like discriminate, or watch Desperate Housewives, or buy homeopathic medicine, the best thing to do is leave them alone. Do we really want the Government monitoring and judging our peaceful economic choices? The only thing at stake with discrimination is it prevents cooperation between certain people. But so what? I do not have a right to have others work with me; such things should be purely voluntary. And there are still plenty of better, non-discriminating people to work with.