I'd guess that you were not hired for poise, and since you
don't tell us how the swimsuit portion of the interview went (bragging eh?), the
most probable reason for your hiring was a combination of:
in reply to (Ovid) Re(2): Jaron Lanier is a Schmuck
in thread Jaron Lanier is a Schmuck
- you appeared intelligent
- you admitted when you didn't know something
- you assessed the building stress and futility of the questioning, and
dealt with it using a simple, humerous, and polite question that made everyone feel better about
what they were doing there
IMHO, these are all features (or at least indications of them) you want to find in employees, but often don't. Yes plenty
of people can stumble around and look the part, and that is
precisely why an interviewer must use less tangible measures than test
results to select people. In a previous company I was involved in staffing
a software development group which was to do a major overhaul of a DOS-based
scheduling system and move it into Win32 (all in C and assembly at the time).
We built a test of basic C skills, but as I recall the results were not in any way
related to the eventual hiring decisions.
If someone has the right
personality they can learn what you need them to know. In many cases
even the best programmers would need to learn a great deal in
order to build an application in specific field about which they know nothing.
I'd like to be able to assign to an luser