On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:10:59 -0000, tim <TimJ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>There has been quite a lot of research on the question of programming
>aptitude, because of the fact that a lot of people just don't ever "get
>it". Originally programming courses had high failure rates. Academics
>were tearing their hair out. Then they moved the goal posts so that they
>pass, but they still can't program. The result is a significant number of
>people who have a degree in CS but can't even do a simple programming
>challenge.
>
>Aptitude tests, though often sold for a high price, have proven to be
>pretty useless. NO better than IQ tests, which are not that useful for
>these purposes.
>
>There was one interesting piece of research (I have the link on my other
>computer) which showed fairly convincingly that most people do not
>actually think in a logical way. They function by simple verbal pattern
>matching, memorisation, intuition, and by copying other people. These
>individuals, almost independently of how intelligent they are, cannot
>program.
>
>A minority of people think in a different way, constructing mental models
>of things and people, and then operating on those models. These people
can
>program. As you pointed out, you don't need a high IQ to program, though
>very complex programs are another matter.
My found the same when evaluating tests. I started with six programmers of
known ability,
all pretty high but some higher than others. I assigned each a numeric
score on ability. I
gave them a Programming Aptitude Test and ran a regression between the
test and ability
scores. It was around .55, little better than random. I did the same with
a dozen other
tests. One was on trivia, one I wrote, one was an IQ test, some were on
non-computer
technical fields. In all cases, there was no correlation.
Then I tried one section of the military General Classification Test (GCT)
called Spatial
Relation****ps. It was multiple choice with no words, just pictures of two
dimensional
patterns you had to mentally fold and rotate. Bingo. The correlation was
over .90.
Notably, the highest scorers finished fastest, in as little as half the
allotted time
which was 12 minutes for 20 questions. The instructions said no one was
expected to finish
in 20 minutes.
A friend gave it to his larger and more diverse team of 70 programmers,
who were college
student stringers (part-time workers). Bingo again. The correlation was
even better,
around .95. His full time systems programmers did it in half the time and
got 100% right.
I started using it on applicants who were experienced programmers. Most
couldn't finish in
12 minutes, and got quite a few wrong. A waitress who knew nothing about
programming did
it in half the time and got 100% right. Three months later she was good;
six months later
she was a star.
The traditional job interview is worthless for *****sing logical ability.
It measures
personality and social skill. I can tell more from glancing at one page of
code than from
a half hour of conversation.
>One can view Aspergers/Autism as an extreme manifestation of this
>"systematising" approach to the world. Whole books have been written
>advocating this view. If this is true, it would not be surprising if the
>associated personality traits were more common in the programming world.
>
>This is not necessarily a bad thing. The other extreme away from the
>autistic person is the "social butterfly" for whom nothing exists but
>social relation****ps, and who cannot deal in any way with things that
>require the exercise of logic and reason. These are different ways of
>looking at the world with strengths and weaknesses.
On the radio last week a relation****ps expert posed and answered the
question: who is the
better mate, a geek or the most popular person in the class? The answer
was the geek, but
not for the expected reason that the popular person was already taken. The
reason she gave
is that the popular person is "self-monitoring", presenting an image the
listener wants to
see. It changes for each listener. It's not who the popular person really
is. The geek
isn't so artful; what you see is real.
|
