Can't thank you enough for this. This is the sort of knowledge I didn't even realize I was missing; hey, if we pay you to review some stats textbooks for us, will you recommend one? 😅
> Using this procedure, then, will on average yield a value of 20k * 10, or 200k USD/year, as you hired 10 people.
Shouldn't this be $20k * 10 * 0.7? I thought the $20k was a figure per-standard-deviation, but the test only improved employee quality by 0.7 deviations, right? And the real benefit will be less, because you probably weren't hiring at random before.
My understanding was that the case for hiring-by-test was (a) the quality of your hires goes up, some; and (b) it is cheaper than other hiring methods. There's an interplay between a few things:
1. The test will give you a better rating of the candidate's quality than your bespoke process would.
2. The test is cheaper, per candidate, than your bespoke process.
3. In fact, the test is so cheap that you can consider a much larger number of candidates.
Item 1 improves employee quality because you can more accurately recognize candidate quality. This will hopefully be worth money as described in most of the post.
Item 2 improves your company finances without having any effect on employee quality. This is worth money too!
Item 3 costs you money. The test is cheap, but its cost is not negative, so expanding the candidate pool is bad for your finances. However, a larger pool improves employee quality because some of the candidates that join the pool (compared to your original process) will have quality above replacement level. The top 10 candidates from a pool of 400 will be better than the top 10 candidates from a pool of 100. In the terms of the post, this lets you spend money to improve your selection ratio.
All of these are pretty significant effects, but none of them are best compared to "random hiring".
"As I have explained before, the same is true when it comes to polygenic embryo selection, which is essentially a hiring task for the job of being your child. 🧒🏻"
Excellent point. And also being a valuable, productive member of the human race.
Can't thank you enough for this. This is the sort of knowledge I didn't even realize I was missing; hey, if we pay you to review some stats textbooks for us, will you recommend one? 😅
> Using this procedure, then, will on average yield a value of 20k * 10, or 200k USD/year, as you hired 10 people.
Shouldn't this be $20k * 10 * 0.7? I thought the $20k was a figure per-standard-deviation, but the test only improved employee quality by 0.7 deviations, right? And the real benefit will be less, because you probably weren't hiring at random before.
My understanding was that the case for hiring-by-test was (a) the quality of your hires goes up, some; and (b) it is cheaper than other hiring methods. There's an interplay between a few things:
1. The test will give you a better rating of the candidate's quality than your bespoke process would.
2. The test is cheaper, per candidate, than your bespoke process.
3. In fact, the test is so cheap that you can consider a much larger number of candidates.
Item 1 improves employee quality because you can more accurately recognize candidate quality. This will hopefully be worth money as described in most of the post.
Item 2 improves your company finances without having any effect on employee quality. This is worth money too!
Item 3 costs you money. The test is cheap, but its cost is not negative, so expanding the candidate pool is bad for your finances. However, a larger pool improves employee quality because some of the candidates that join the pool (compared to your original process) will have quality above replacement level. The top 10 candidates from a pool of 400 will be better than the top 10 candidates from a pool of 100. In the terms of the post, this lets you spend money to improve your selection ratio.
All of these are pretty significant effects, but none of them are best compared to "random hiring".
"As I have explained before, the same is true when it comes to polygenic embryo selection, which is essentially a hiring task for the job of being your child. 🧒🏻"
Excellent point. And also being a valuable, productive member of the human race.