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

Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 246 posts

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#231

Post by tarsinge »

splintercell wrote: post #222
tarsinge wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like a test for how good you are at over engineering things. Making classes for data processing functions is OOP wrongly done in my opinion. Simple functions or even a lambda seems more appropriate, ability to make it simple is seems less impressive but it takes experience. Plus what if your language is functional and doesn't even have classes?

> It looks like a test for how good you are at over engineering things. Sorry I typed it all on mobile, so laziness got to me. But it seems like that you missed the point of the test by a fair margin. The test allows you to judge overengineering too. The whole idea is, give them scenarios like this, suitable to your values and business needs. Every language has abstractions, and it is the decision to figure out good…

I reacted at

> If he implements a class Calc with two methods as Add and Subtract, then give him 5 points, if he just writes another method then zero points.

Sorry for misunderstanding your whole point (no sarcasm, my english is not ideal)

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#232

Post by hackinthebochs »

pklausler wrote: post #31

I have learned that an (in)ability to program "in the small" correlates very well with an (in)ability to program in the large, and now ask mostly simply questions whose answers are things like one-line Boolean predicates to test for well-defined conditions. It is paradoxically easier for an inept candidate to fake his way through an algorithm design question than it is to fake the coding of a simple test for "determi…

Exactly this. I've been arguing for years that those simple string/array/link list/tree manipulation questions are simply a microcosm of the qualities that make for good developers in general. If those trip you up then you need to consider that there are serious holes in your abilities, not that the test is bad.

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#233

Post by [deleted] »

pklausler wrote: post #31

I have learned that an (in)ability to program "in the small" correlates very well with an (in)ability to program in the large, and now ask mostly simply questions whose answers are things like one-line Boolean predicates to test for well-defined conditions. It is paradoxically easier for an inept candidate to fake his way through an algorithm design question than it is to fake the coding of a simple test for "determi…

[deleted]

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#234

Post by cableshaft »

marknutter wrote: post #115
grillvogel wrote: post #16

technical interviews are a joke. the majority of the time they exist so the interviewer can try to feel smart and subject the interviewee to whatever whimsical problem they found on the internet. how often do you do group coding in a whiteboard in your actual job? at one interview I was criticized for sitting and thinking about a problem for a minute without just blindly jumping into attempting to solve it. also tons…

I once was called into an emergency meeting by the CEO of the company I was working for the time. When I entered the room, all of the top brass were seated around the table, some visibly agitated. The CEO proceeded to hand me a single black whiteboard marker as he stated "the fate of the company depends on you". The problem was outlined by a fellow engineer and it was explained that I had 10 minutes to solve it, or w…

I want to see this turned into a movie. Or at least a skit on Youtube. Bravo.

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#235

Post by splintercell »

tarsinge wrote: post #231
splintercell wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It looks like a test for how good you are at over engineering things. Sorry I typed it all on mobile, so laziness got to me. But it seems like that you missed the point of the test by a fair margin. The test allows you to judge overengineering too. The whole idea is, give them scenarios like this, suitable to your values and business needs. Every language has abstractions, and it is the decision to figure out good…

I reacted at > If he implements a class Calc with two methods as Add and Subtract, then give him 5 points, if he just writes another method then zero points. Sorry for misunderstanding your whole point (no sarcasm, my english is not ideal)

Oh I understand. What I skipped explicitly writing there is, if he writes an abstraction, and defends it well then give him 10 points, if he can't defend, give him 5 points. If he doesn't write an abstraction and defends it well, then give it 10 points, if not then 0....you get the jist.

The fundamental point is, who can best figure out the requirements of the customer, and write code which makes most sense with least amount of 'future problems'.

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#236

Post by kasey_junk »

st3v3r wrote: post #224
kasey_junk wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you sign them and take money from the people offering them?

So? For one, I live in California, where those clauses are not enforceable. If they want to put illegal stuff in their contracts, that's not my fault.

Saying they are not enforceable & saying that they are completely risk free for a potential hirer who wants to pay a nominal payment for coding exercises are 2 different things, especially considering that conflict of interest laws are enforceable.

As for the ethics of it, I find it odd that you are fine with working for someone who uses something you are vehemently against, but hey to each their own.

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#237

Post by eropple »

maxaf wrote: post #99
eropple wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having them do code tests is pretty much the only way that doesn't involve talking to every single one. I get where you're coming from. But to me that's still a very, very selfish way of approaching this. You are asking for a blind burn of four hours of their time just to consider talking to them. Four hours is a lot of time. It's half a workday. You're asking for a hell of a lot just to not-a-culture-fit them out…

I wish there was a way to scale the "add feature to FOSS project we use" thing. Scale is a concern here because I see this exercise being doled out more than a few times, which means that every instance must involve someone deciding what features should be added. There's also a limit to how much can be added to the same handful of projects over time. Can't ask all candidates to add the same feature over and over, or…

> Can't ask all candidates to add the same feature over and over

Ehh. Make a list of, say, ten features across the stuff you use. You really think that's not going to be enough for fifty candidates, if the state of the industry is as apocalyptic as everyone says it is?

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#238

Post by aakashprasad91 »

This is why we at Lytmus believe the most effective way to assess a candidate is to see how they perform on a real work sample. We've built up a virtual machine based platform that allows candidates to showcase their skills in a real development environment with working code cases (web, mobile, data, systems, etc.). Most interviewing methods like algorithmic challenges often only provide signal into a discrete skill that can be acquired through practice, whereas what matters is whether or not you can actually work on real world projects, understand an existing code base and perform on the job as opposed to on an interview coding challenge. Google's SVP of People Ops Laszlo Bock also writes about the ineffectiveness of indirect tests and their weak correlation with on the job performance.

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#239

Post by [deleted] »

chrisper wrote: post #67
maxaf wrote: post #29

Take home tests FTW. The thinking goes as follows: 1. If the candidate can't be bothered to complete a 2-4 hour (depending on claimed seniority) code test in the language of their choice, we can't be bothered to talk to them. 2. If the candidate does reasonably well by completing the code test somewhat on time (with a fat margin allowed for them, well, having a life) and within parameters of the task, they're invited…

>1. If the candidate can't be bothered to complete a 2-4 hour (depending on claimed seniority) code test in the language of their choice, we can't be bothered to talk to them. A good reason not to work at your company. Why would I want to invest 4(!) unpaid hours into something where I am not even considered seriously yet? I recently had a coding challenge, which was not only vague, but also took up two hours of my t…

[deleted]

Re: Technical interview performance is kind of arbitrary

#240

Post by kafkaesq »

maxaf wrote: post #29

Take home tests FTW. The thinking goes as follows: 1. If the candidate can't be bothered to complete a 2-4 hour (depending on claimed seniority) code test in the language of their choice, we can't be bothered to talk to them. 2. If the candidate does reasonably well by completing the code test somewhat on time (with a fat margin allowed for them, well, having a life) and within parameters of the task, they're invited…

4 hours is a lot of time out of someone's day, and a near-dealbreaker for anyone gainfully employed and having some semblance of a life. Do you not realize this?

Meanwhile, it really doesn't take long to find out if someone is "worth talking to." Ask them to provide a code sample, and talk to them about for 10 minutes or so. Or if you must use a coding exercise, really, just keep it short and sweet. A good coder can show you a lot about their sensibilities in their solution to even just a slightly non-standard sorting problem.

Post reply on HN