Sure it might sound silly but sometimes it's not whether you can actually do the task or not. They mean different things, though. Anyway, I've not taken the time till now to really develop my understanding of this flash judgement I make of people, but it has always really bugged me. If you are bothered to pursue it, why should I believe you have a chance at approaching it if you haven't nailed something you've done since you were five years old? These days programmers don't want to be bothered about the language syntax they use and heavily depend of autocomplete and intellisense to do even simple tasks. Deriving my claim from these seems reasonable enough, to me, given the context of the discussion a comment thread of a relevant topic on some website a minority of people care about.
Or maybe even not so borderline. As for my dyslexia, it certainly is relevant, as this entire thread, from when I started posting on it, which is a direct ancestor of this post, and yours, is about whether it is moral to deny people jobs just because they make such an unimportant mistake. My newsletter, the Snappington Post, is available from www. As to people caring about what they write: The litmus test should be whether they can effectively communicate, not whether they have the same arbitrary bees in their bonnets that someone else has. It's that once you take a prescriptivist stance you're either making an appeal to popularity or you're entering an arse-kicking contest with a seven-legged monster with no arse. In some cases, far more important than writing the actual code.
In some cases, far more important than writing the actual code. I guess I have no scientific evidence for this, but I do hear that Italians are better lovers. First, his technical ability, if the resume was to be believed, was impressive. The thing is, I don't see the correlation between grammar and the job I am supposed to do, but more importantly, by doing that, you aren't warranting me the respect I believe I deserve. It may simply be that a programmer with poor grammar has spent more time handling code which also happens to be a milieu with very clear right and wrong feedback mechanisms for incorrect syntax and structure than in handling written language. There's a big difference between someone with an actual disability and those that just don't care about what they write. On this topic, I think that being able to communicate clearly is an essential skill.
No one is going to die Since you brought it up. You must be fun to work with. By having only hired people who receive top marks on the grammar test most of the facts supporting the article are proven to be bias. I haven't seen any grammar books or grammar related materials in my 20+ years of exposure to the U. This is very much a cultural fit test.
As reading and writing have become more widespread, though, the idea of relaxing grammatical rules to reflect how we tend to talk has gained broader acceptance. If someone is hiring for managing a jewelry store a local example I know or for building wood-frame houses, it's quite possible that a work-sample test would completely disregard the issue of correct spelling and grammar. The second reason was that his answers in the application form tanked. Like the author, my experience has been that programmers who care about language tend to write beautiful code. Apart from my words, I have my intent, thoughts, opinions, facts. Still, the article's language is clear, precise, and suggests that the author takes pains to accurately communicate his thoughts.
And yet now the world wants to add all these crazy hiring criteria hoops that I'm supposed to jump through??? I'm fond of Bertrand Russell myself. Zero tolerance may be taking it a bit too far, but one would imagine he can tell the difference between a typo in a big test and actual fundamental lack of knowledge of the grammar you should have learned by the time you were 14. Though - if you'll forgive me drawing further from our mystical beastiary - trolls might be an exception? Good grammar is an indication of good grammar, and that's that. He lobbied very hard for a transition to a completely phonetic alphabet. I know good programmers who write weird English. But I cringe inside on a daily basis when I edit the same mistakes in the same kinds of writing again and again. But I can stare at a paragraph for an hour and not be able to see such subtleties.
Assuming you could, assuming they were available to work because they couldn't find any other job, would you hire a Rhodes Scholar? I think it's a fair, but just to simplify the argument: Poor grammar often is an artifact of a person being inexperienced with reading, writing, or both. Especially for irregular and idiomatic aspects of grammar. Yeah, I know, wheelchair ramps are annoying! Good grammar is credibility, especially on the internet. Command over native language doesn't signify programming prowess. It's hard to be rash with code if you aren't copy pasting. Bottom line: if someone is hiring for a company that produces technical documentation, a company like iFixit.
You see, at its core, code is prose. One of the reasons I typically avoid books by academics: to much difficult verbosity. An interesting take on the value of good grammar from Kyle Wiens in the Harvard Business Review. After all, someone who hasn't put in the effort to study even the basics of modern philosophy can't be trusted to really think deeply on any issue, can they? He's been one of the best hires I've made. Such validation studies can be quite expensive. Poor grammar i wuld leik to apply 4 jorb is an acceptable thing to use when rejecting a candidate. In fact, when it comes to my whole business, details are everything.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that U. Really, they are nice and smart guys, but it seems they do not give a crap about their art. I dont ever use good grammer when i txt ppl, however, I do know how to use grammar correctly. If you put all sorts of irrelevant criteria in between, you are likely to get people who have mastered the art of beating interviews by specializing in those criteria and diverting your attention from actual issues. As long as it's a reasonable test, you can argue its merits. If writing is not particularly part of the work, don't worry about it. That is impossible to detect on any test where the answer is typed.