What a dumb fucking interview question...which I have to answer as part of a class assignment on practicing for these things. I understand questions like “describe a time you...” scenarios or “why do you want to...” questions. But not this nonsense.
I much prefer strip club interviews. “Get topless and dance on stage for a song so we know you’re not fat.”
How do we know that manholes identity as a man? They are round because the damn hole is round. A better question is “why are manholes round at the opening?” Don’t overthink it. Your professors are dicks. You can make a round hole with a square cover and the cover will not fall through if it is bigger than the hole it covers. It may not be Flush, but that is another question for the dick professors.
They are round because the do cover a round tube. The tube is round because a circular cross section allows for the most area compared to the outside surface which allows the most flow of water in the sewers. They are also a stronger shape than squares for the pressure they are exposed to by the ground they are under and they are cheaper to manufacture.
Also because a circle is the most efficient way to cover a given area. So, the material costs are at a minimum for manhole covers for a round cover. Are you taking a philosophy or calculus course?
I pretty much hate all interview questions. But I especially hate the courses that teach you how to answer them. It leads to a constant arms race where I've got to constantly find new ways to determine if a candidate truly has the qualities I'm seeking or if they've just been trained to interview well. I can sniff out the ones who've just been trained well with reasonable success and minimal effort, but my recruiters can't. So I end up doing 2nd interviews with 5x as many people as I should and wondering how many qualified candidates my recruiters turned away because the did poorly on those stupid questions. It wastes my time as well as the candidates time. Without that bullshit I could get the hires I need faster and jobseekers could get the jobs they need faster.
Its the same thing as the fuckwads in elementary school teaching kids how to pass the math test instead of teaching them the logical skills to understand the math they are performing. Turns into an arms race with poor 3rd graders getting ridiculous word problems to try and ask how much is 3 x 4; Half of the students taking differential analysis can't even understand what they're asking, much less the parents or kids. So the kids learn some keyword to focus on instead reading the question and understanding what is being asked.
The real reason that manhole covers are round is that they fit inside a lip. The actual hole is a bit smaller. The round cover can’t fall in the hole. Do you want to down into the sewer to retrieve a man hole cover/
“So I end up doing 2nd interviews with 5x as many people as I should and wondering how many qualified candidates my recruiters turned away because the did poorly on those stupid questions.”
Possibly a dumb question, but is there a way to re-train the recruiters?
Hiring for Attitude: A Revolutionary Approach to Recruiting and Selecting People with Both Tremendous Skills and Superb Attitude https://g.co/kgs/pe9xHM
"Possibly a dumb question, but is there a way to re-train the recruiters?"
Yes and no. HR is a shared function, so the same people recruiting for my positions are also recruiting for a variety of other positions. It's not reasonable to expect them to have sufficient depth of knowledge in areas relevant to the positions I'm hiring for as well as all of the others in their portfolio. What we end up doing is using the recruiters to narrow down the right "types" of people. They'll pick which resumes get sent to me based on a list of criteria I give them, education/job history/location/etc. Then they'll do the first round of interviews mostly judging non-job specific criteria that can be shared within their portfolio. They'll try to throw a little stress at them to see how they react, try to get an idea of their mindset and reasoning skills, if they think their personality will fit with the team. But they know next to nothing about the job itself, at least not to the degree I expect the candidates to. That part they leave to the hiring managers to determine.
Could we blow up the whole process and find something more effective? Probably. Am I qualified and/or motivated to do that? Nope. I rely on my HR team to do that first round effectively because I don't have a more viable approach. That and it's kinda douchy for me to be running around to other departments telling them how to do their jobs.
34 comments
Latest
Do I get the job?
Going off of that...
Why are they not called butt plugs. They cover a sewer system
Its the same thing as the fuckwads in elementary school teaching kids how to pass the math test instead of teaching them the logical skills to understand the math they are performing. Turns into an arms race with poor 3rd graders getting ridiculous word problems to try and ask how much is 3 x 4; Half of the students taking differential analysis can't even understand what they're asking, much less the parents or kids. So the kids learn some keyword to focus on instead reading the question and understanding what is being asked.
Also, I've seen fat strippers. They don't care if you're fat
Possibly a dumb question, but is there a way to re-train the recruiters?
Hiring for Attitude: A Revolutionary Approach to Recruiting and Selecting People with Both Tremendous Skills and Superb Attitude https://g.co/kgs/pe9xHM
Yes and no. HR is a shared function, so the same people recruiting for my positions are also recruiting for a variety of other positions. It's not reasonable to expect them to have sufficient depth of knowledge in areas relevant to the positions I'm hiring for as well as all of the others in their portfolio. What we end up doing is using the recruiters to narrow down the right "types" of people. They'll pick which resumes get sent to me based on a list of criteria I give them, education/job history/location/etc. Then they'll do the first round of interviews mostly judging non-job specific criteria that can be shared within their portfolio. They'll try to throw a little stress at them to see how they react, try to get an idea of their mindset and reasoning skills, if they think their personality will fit with the team. But they know next to nothing about the job itself, at least not to the degree I expect the candidates to. That part they leave to the hiring managers to determine.
Could we blow up the whole process and find something more effective? Probably. Am I qualified and/or motivated to do that? Nope. I rely on my HR team to do that first round effectively because I don't have a more viable approach. That and it's kinda douchy for me to be running around to other departments telling them how to do their jobs.