I have a math problem.

[ronpaul]

Statistics, to be specific. Help me settle a debate I'm having with a friend. Here it goes:

There are 3 individuals applying for one job. Each individual has different qualifications and different personalities. These three have been selected from a pool of 8 or so to move on to a final interview. My question is simple: does each candidate share a 33% chance of getting the job? In other words, does one candidate have the same odds of getting the job as either of the other two?

My argument is that they do not share equal odds. My understanding is that to share equal odds each outcome has to be equally likely. In this case, to make the outcomes equally likely the employer would need to select a candidate at random. But the choice is not random because the employer must evaluate the skills and personalities of each of the candidates, which are different and vary, and this evaluation may lead to the increase or decrease in the desirability of the candidate, therefore improving or hurting their odds. If each candidate had an equal chance of getting the job, why would the employer bother to interview and why wouldn't they instead select one candidate from random?

So, please, follow any line of reasoning to explain, if you can, under what circumstances my reasoning is wrong, and why. Please make assumptions only when necessary.

Thanks guys!

 

[XeroX]

I agree with what you said...

 

[HopeFails]

+1 with what you said.

IF the three people were identical in every aspect (looks, thought process, employment history, ect, ect..) then yes, it would be a 33.3333% chance. But as you said, every little thing about a person would be picked apart. Even if one of those people got up in a bad mood, drove to the interview and got a flat tire, or 1,000 other senarios that would throw you off your game, then that person would have a lower chance %.

So your reasoning is correct.

 

[babyJam]

i dunno

 

[Two Listen]

There is only one right answer to this question: Not enough information.

There is simply not enough information in the given scenario to determine what chance any applicant has in getting the job. To determine equal 33.3333% chance, you need to determine every factor the individuals have concerning themselves in relation to what the employer is looking for - or what made them beat out the other applicants thus far.

We also have no way of knowing how the employer is going to be deciding upon who to hire. He could be looking for certain things, he could flip a coin. He could've chosen two of the three because he liked them, and the other one simply because he needed a third. Even if all three were identical in every aspect, the employer could be freaked out by that and not want any of them, he could do eany meany miney moe, how are we to know? Even if they are different in every single way - maybe the employer weighs all of the qualities differently, making each one's individual personality equally worth the others, for different reasons. We don't know.

It's as simple as that, not enough information. They may have an equal chance, they may not. There is a higher chance from a realism standpoint that they do not. But we have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[ronpaul]

This was satisfying, thanks.

There is only one right answer to this question: Not enough information.

There is simply not enough information in the given scenario to determine what chance any applicant has in getting the job. To determine equal 33.3333% chance, you need to determine every factor the individuals have concerning themselves in relation to what the employer is looking for - or what made them beat out the other applicants thus far.

We also have no way of knowing how the employer is going to be deciding upon who to hire. He could be looking for certain things, he could flip a coin. He could've chosen two of the three because he liked them, and the other one simply because he needed a third. Even if all three were identical in every aspect, the employer could be freaked out by that and not want any of them, he could do eany meany miney moe, how are we to know? Even if they are different in every single way - maybe the employer weighs all of the qualities differently, making each one's individual personality equally worth the others, for different reasons. We don't know.

It's as simple as that, not enough information. They may have an equal chance, they may not. There is a higher chance from a realism standpoint that they do not. But we have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[lotus blade]

There is only one right answer to this question: Not enough information.

There is simply not enough information in the given scenario to determine what chance any applicant has in getting the job. To determine equal 33.3333% chance, you need to determine every factor the individuals have concerning themselves in relation to what the employer is looking for - or what made them beat out the other applicants thus far.

We also have no way of knowing how the employer is going to be deciding upon who to hire. He could be looking for certain things, he could flip a coin. He could've chosen two of the three because he liked them, and the other one simply because he needed a third. Even if all three were identical in every aspect, the employer could be freaked out by that and not want any of them, he could do eany meany miney moe, how are we to know? Even if they are different in every single way - maybe the employer weighs all of the qualities differently, making each one's individual personality equally worth the others, for different reasons. We don't know.

It's as simple as that, not enough information. They may have an equal chance, they may not. There is a higher chance from a realism standpoint that they do not. But we have no way of knowing for sure.

+1 this is correct.

 

[Lance]

Seems completely obvious that they don't have equal chances based on skills (just because pretty much no one's -entirely- equal for things like that), although I suppose the person hiring them could be indecisive and pick randomly.

 

[Tidus]

There is only one right answer to this question: Not enough information.

There is simply not enough information in the given scenario to determine what chance any applicant has in getting the job. To determine equal 33.3333% chance, you need to determine every factor the individuals have concerning themselves in relation to what the employer is looking for - or what made them beat out the other applicants thus far.

We also have no way of knowing how the employer is going to be deciding upon who to hire. He could be looking for certain things, he could flip a coin. He could've chosen two of the three because he liked them, and the other one simply because he needed a third. Even if all three were identical in every aspect, the employer could be freaked out by that and not want any of them, he could do eany meany miney moe, how are we to know? Even if they are different in every single way - maybe the employer weighs all of the qualities differently, making each one's individual personality equally worth the others, for different reasons. We don't know.

It's as simple as that, not enough information. They may have an equal chance, they may not. There is a higher chance from a realism standpoint that they do not. But we have no way of knowing for sure.

This guy knows what's up. :O

 

[JayFlip]

There is not enough info, aka too many variables, to determine what chance each would have. If the employer had taken no glance at the candidates but they had been prescreened, they would have an equal chance, UNTIL their applications are looked at (think % to win changing per community card in Texas hold'em)

If each candidate were identical in EVERY aspect, they would either all be hired, or all be disregarded and a new round of candidates would be called.