Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#41

Post by lgas »

jy1 wrote: post #38
kafkaesq wrote: post #31

However, he was less comfortable jumping into [and] thinking about a problem outside of an area of expertise. These kinds of snap judgements I find very problematic. As if anyone -- even if they're an "industry leader", even if they've interviewed hundreds of candidates; heck, even if they're a truly towering figure in their field (or otherwise a truly brilliant person that no one knows about yet) -- can make that ki…

I don't think it's a "snap judgement". Interviewing is a trying to get as much signal in a short window. Any good interviewer knows there is high variance, however you still need to make an assessment quickly.

It kind of sounds like you said:

"I don't think it's a snap judgement. Interviewing is [making snap judgements]. Any good interviewer knows there is high variance, however you still need to make [a snap judgement]."

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#42

Post by gaius »

sidlls wrote: post #28

I'm wondering what parts of the interviews had anything to do with engineering. I saw questions about CS textbook trivia in the first interview and vague references to questions in the second. I didn't see much substance with respect to problem solving, especially in the context of machine learning or data science, analytical thinking in terms of systems or anything else that would benefit me were I hiring manager us…

saw questions about CS textbook trivia

But that's the point - this is really a filter for people who have recently been cramming textbooks, e.g. someone just out of college. It's a way to sneak ageism past HR, that's all.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#43

Post by jy1 »

lgas wrote: post #41
jy1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a "snap judgement". Interviewing is a trying to get as much signal in a short window. Any good interviewer knows there is high variance, however you still need to make an assessment quickly.

It kind of sounds like you said: "I don't think it's a snap judgement. Interviewing is [making snap judgements]. Any good interviewer knows there is high variance, however you still need to make [a snap judgement]."

Apologies, to clarify:

"These kinds of snap judgements I find very problematic. As if anyone... can make that kind of an assessment from a (highly contrived and stressful) 45-minute or so interaction with someone."

"snap judgement" in my reading, implies a rashness, lack of carelessness, or impulsiveness, (or arrogance, which is implied by OP)

My counter is that although it is not a lot of evidence, it is generally a very deliberate act.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#45

Post by sidlls »

gaius wrote: post #42
sidlls wrote: post #28

I'm wondering what parts of the interviews had anything to do with engineering. I saw questions about CS textbook trivia in the first interview and vague references to questions in the second. I didn't see much substance with respect to problem solving, especially in the context of machine learning or data science, analytical thinking in terms of systems or anything else that would benefit me were I hiring manager us…

saw questions about CS textbook trivia But that's the point - this is really a filter for people who have recently been cramming textbooks, e.g. someone just out of college. It's a way to sneak ageism past HR, that's all.

It could be. Some hiring teams at the place I work use these kinds of silly interviews, but they have a number of "older" people on the team. Some of my teammates use these questions for their interviews, and they haven't indicated any preference for younger developers (e.g. to save on wages).

I think ageism might play a role, but I think a bigger factor is that this industry is just filled with people who have an academic degree and desperately want to think of themselves as engaged in sophisticated math-y work even when what most do most of the time is closer to being a glorified handy man. This includes myself, of course, and I work on a data science team.

The industry is just too enamored with itself.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#46

Post by IncRnd »

aub3bhat wrote: post #36
IncRnd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason many senior engineers cannot answer questions of this type. These types of questions are meant to see if someone can write programs in language X. They are also followed up with exploratory 'what if' questions that enable the interviewer to inspect the thought processes of the candidate. They are also used in behavioral interviews.

The person interviewed isn't senior. The one interviewing is. I think her solution for array larger than memory is very inefficient. Even in smaller case one might achieve speed up by excluding unnecessary read/temp/move in else clause by just by writing two values which will likely be in registers.

Thank you. My comment was not about the candidates but was an explanation for why these types of questions are asked by interviewers.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#47

Post by kafkaesq »

jy1 wrote: post #43
lgas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of sounds like you said: "I don't think it's a snap judgement. Interviewing is [making snap judgements]. Any good interviewer knows there is high variance, however you still need to make [a snap judgement]."

Apologies, to clarify: "These kinds of snap judgements I find very problematic. As if anyone... can make that kind of an assessment from a (highly contrived and stressful) 45-minute or so interaction with someone." "snap judgement" in my reading, implies a rashness, lack of carelessness, or impulsiveness, (or arrogance, which is implied by OP) My counter is that although it is not a lot of evidence, it is generally a…

My counter is that although it is not a lot of evidence, it is generally a very deliberate act.

Is not "lacking in evidence, yet deliberate" the very definition of... rash and impulsive?

BTW I wouldn't say these people are arrogant (for making these kinds of judgements), per se.

But it does seem that they're biting off more than they can realistically chew.

Re: Show HN: Anonymous interview evals of strong software/ML engineering candidates

#48

Post by Terretta »

ngptprad wrote: post #13
ztratar wrote: post #6

Looks a lot like Triplebyte. What's the difference?

Yes, I'd say they are similar in that they also pre-vet candidates. One major difference is that we are more personalized to each candidate as we can match them to a senior engineer in their field (or field they are looking to enter). I think this should result in a more tailored and useful experience for the candidate (interview prep and feedback relevant for the role they want). Also, our interviewers are independe…

What level are you trying to place candidates? For example:

Engineering manager: https://careers.mufgamericas.com/job-incubation-engineering-...

Engineering lead: https://careers.mufgamericas.com/job-engineering-lead-platfo...

We’re a bigcorp (top 10 global bank) but I’m actively kicking tires on novel and/or data-driven candidate matching techniques. If you’ve got something interesting, bring it on.

Post reply on HN