Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:04:10 -0400
Reply-To: Dwight Eggers <res09ag5@VERIZON.NET>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Dwight Eggers <res09ag5@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Re: what is wrong with this picture -- comments on
interviewingcandidates
Hi Don,
I sincerely apologize that I have offended you by my public response to
this thread. My message was meant more as a general comment on the value
of these kinds of quiz questions that regularly appear on SAS-L. It was
not meant as an attack on your list, or you personally.
As you have explained, the project needs and the required skill set is
unique for each situation. It would appear that your list, and the
judgements used in interpreting the responses, have met your needs. There
is little on your list, though, that I would use, and if I was confronted
with this list as an interviewee I might sit back and wonder. As you
explain, the discussion that accompanies the interviewees response and
the discretion in the grading, is really more important than the first
response. It appears that your list had served more as a basis for
discussion, rather than a scorecard, which I subscribe to.
I am not going to respond point by point to your last post. I think you
have have explained the background of your list and defended its items
very well.
All that I meant my "buggy" is that something does not function as
intended, not that it fails to compile. These are the insidious problems
like the missing "&", misusing macro logic, etc. Again, my statement was not directed specifically at your list.
One point that caught my attention is "Anything documented and usable ...
is not obscure". I agree, but is it fair game for a closed-book quiz?
When it comes to SAS syntax, I think that the best measure of a candidate
who claims to be an experienced SAS programmer would be to examine their
Base SAS manual. I expect to see something that is dog-eared, tabbed,
pages falling out, cross-references in the margins, etc. If they have
had to transfer it to a binder, they would get extra credit. (I vaguely
recall that this idea has appeared on the list before, so I make no claim
of originality). Being able to find something in the documentation is
much more important than total recall. If they don't bring their own
copy along, offer them yours, and see how adept they are at finding what
they need. These syntax matters are so superficial though -- again, just
my opinion.
"Vague and ambiguous" obviously is not your style, but I perceive that
you might be a little thin skinned. I suspect that you would not want
me working on your team, and I probably would not be disappointed.
Dwight
| 
