zlacker

>>azhenl+(OP)
I regret causing confusion here. It turns out that this correlation was true on the initial small data set, but after gathering more data, the correlation went away. So the real lesson should be: "if you gather data on a lot of low-frequency events, some of them will display a spurious correlation, about which you can make up a story."

>>norvig+R9
You and/or Google HR were also prominently quoted as saying, IIRC, that GPA, standardized test scores (and interview ratings?) had no observable correlation with job performance either. I always wrote that off as just range restriction/Berkson's paradox, but did those also go away?

>>gwern+Ie
This made me reread the article[0] again (if we were talking about the same one) and I don't see any mention of interview ratings and job performance.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-...

>>vacher+qy
Hm? It's right there at the start:

"Years ago, we did a study to determine whether anyone at Google is particularly good at hiring. We looked at tens of thousands of interviews, and everyone who had done the interviews and what they scored the candidate, and how that person ultimately performed in their job. We found zero relationship.

...One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless — no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation. Google famously used to ask everyone for a transcript and G.P.A.’s and test scores, but we don’t anymore, unless you’re just a few years out of school. We found that they don’t predict anything."