Live data from Hacker News

A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

mattermark.com

481–490 of 517 posts

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, you can specify your expectations up front. It doesn't have to be an exact number, just a hint -- e.g. "No talk if the salary isn't well north of 100K".

You're anchoring them to offer you 100k. Pretty sure that's not what you wanted to do ^^

"Well north of" are the key words here.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#482
I am 100000% behind this - I point blank refuse to do code tests because they are asinine and I probably have the exact same one in a private GH repository from one of the million other unimaginative tech hirers.

You want me to prove my worth? Fine, you can pay me for it and get something useful out of it at the end, as a senior developer I really shouldn't have to "Write a palindrome detector" to prove that I can code, I have a degree, we did that shit repeatedly!

Nice to see other people are coming around to this way of thinking

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#483

Payment option is really good points. With take home problems, there is risk their brilliant buddy helps them out, and teaches them about the solution to help them talk about it. For this I feel its best to do any tests onsite.

Is this really a thing, or are you just optimising for a problem that could potentially happen? Maybe I'm just being naive, but I'd like to think if someone did that I'd quite quickly realise either at interview or on hiring them that they're not actually capable of doing the job by themselves.

> I'd quite quickly realise either at interview or on hiring them that they're not actually capable of doing the job by themselves

Not sure. The whole idea of the test is to get around people that talk well vs do well.

And assuming the friend told them about how/why they did something the interviewee can talk about this solution as if they did it. How would you know? See I'm assuming the 'friend' adds value to the solution to make it amazing, and the person who is interviewing still has average knowledge so its not like they are completely winging it.

> are you just optimising for a problem that could potentially happen?

Absolutely. You should optimise for problems that could happen if they have reasonable likelihood and will become significant issues if they do happen. Not going to rule out all issues. Thought this seems a likely risk over a reasonable number of candidates.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#484
post #445
post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this argument quite often but my reaction tends to be... ...as someone that's fully employed I'm probably only looking at jobs I'm really interested in. I don't mind doing some free work for stuff I'm interested in. I also enjoy doing small unpaid side projects or programming puzzles in my free time...basically the same concept. That being said, my guess is (ignoring legal implications) paying 200$ or whatever…

Even if I'm interested in it, I'm not interested in doing free work for a for-profit company.

Do you also fundamentally oppose to contributing to FLOSS software because that's most certainly being used by for-profit companies. Or is that ok because others that don't profit from it can also use said software?

I do something that I enjoy and throw it away afterwards or whatever I tend to do with little programming puzzles and project Euler stuff or I do the same thing and a company profits off it. The profiting doesn't really hurt me so I don't mind it. I'd also argue that if the intention of a company is to profit off my interview code I'm hopefully filtering them out (as they tend to be pretty boring)...having people write code for you by pretending to offer a job is also all kinds of horrible strategically so I don't see the potential for a mass exploit.

I can understand your point of view but I hear the dreaded "but my time is too valuable" more often than "it's unfair that they profit of it". My argument was mostly that...if you want the job, your time probably isn't too valuable to try to get it :)

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't suggest someone hasn't read the article. It sounds hostile and doesn't really add anything to your comment.

It does add to the comment. It hopefully encourages people to actually read the article. People can not contribute to a discussion constructively if they do not read the subject of the discussion.

From the HN Guidelines:

> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care about getting paid. I don't care if I am doing it at home or in the interviewer's premises. Don't let me connect to internet. I'll also leave my phone with you just to make sure I don't have access to the internet. I don't mind taking the time away from current employment to go through the process. BUT PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE THOUGH WHILE I AM AT IT. FOR GOD'S SAKE DON"T SIT NEXT TO ME AND TALK TO ME OR EX…

Basically, you just wrote nearly (exactly?) what I wanted to write. I'm good at algorithm problems. I LIKE algorithm problems, but having someone watching me on a whiteboard in a high pressure situation diminishes my abilities. At a minimum , it is a distraction. If it is an easy or familiar problem then it usually doesn't matter and we can discuss the solution and I might even want to talk about it. But if it is a t…

> Furthermore, turning problem solving into a theatrical event

That's a very interesting perspective actually.

If this process prevails then only a certain personality types will be able to work at companies which conduct such interviews.

The danger is that when the biggest and most successful companies (who's founding members didn't go through the same process, on the contrary were most likely solitary coders) conduct such interviews, the smaller and actually very nice places to work tend to copy the same.

I am somewhat in favor of the likes of Google and Facebook who need to filter an ocean full of applicants following this process.

But I have seen smaller companies copying the same process assuming they will find the similar hires as G and Fb. The funniest/hilarious part is when the recruiters start saying "we have a very bar" with so much conviction. Yes, you are a startup, you have a "very high bar" and you need to hire people who will scour the internet and integrate the various bits they find because they need to take the product from A to B YESTERDAY !!!

Although having said that, I think I may be a bit different from what you described. I actually don't mind whiteboarding or coding with pen and paper and I noticed for me it is a lot easier to "talk my thoughts" while whiteboarding. On the contrary, I get seriously annoyed if I have to talk while actually writing code and if it is during a job interview, I just choke.

> Expecting some kind of portal into someone's mind while they solve an unfamiliar and maybe tricky problem strikes me as overindulgent and voyeuristic. It is a flaw in the current technical interview process and the only way to mitigate its effects is to just get more comfortable interviewing.

Yes. We are problem solvers after all. A way shall be found.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that I disagree with many people on HN (and they certainly like to express this with downvotes). Fair enough. Thank you for your verbose reply - I'll reflect on it.

Well, let's explain the downvotes from 1 POV. The "copy/paste" comment just willfully misinterprets how StackOverflow is used. I think that we just don't believe you. Did you arrive at every job with perfect knowledge in the areas you'd be working on? Have you not had to learn anything on the job? If that's the case, then you're vastly overqualified. I feel like I'm being utilized as an employee the best when my mana…

I suspect you're right in many ways.

I mention it as a copy/paste mechanism as I am surrounded by people who use it for that very purpose.

I also did have the knowledge required for the job I applied for, and whilst I have learned a lot (off my own back) over the last 18+ years, very little of it is actually required, as demonstrated by those others who get given similar tasks that they can complete using Stack Overflow.

I'm definitely in the wrong place, and after a while I sense I lost a lot of perspective due to my peers / surroundings.

Personally, I never use downvotes for things I disagree with, but perhaps some people who are luckier to work in better scenarios believe that situations like mine don't exist - I don't wish anybody to walk in my shoes.

Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit rough. I think you are missing the other value proposition for SO: in a world of poorly documented interfaces, it gives cogent, vetted examples of what works. And you still need to have expertise to know which solutions are crap vs gold. In the 'old days' you had maybe one or two languages and the language was the thing (not vast libraries like Java or .NET .. oh excuse me, the guys who used to get tease…

I just wouldn't expect to be applying for something / trying to do a test task, where I didn't already have the knowledge. Then again, I don't really use SO anyway - I know somepeople use it daily.

I've used dozens of libraries professionally over the past year or so. Some of them I use every day, others I only need to touch once a week or once a month. Why would I be expected to memorise all of this when it takes only a few seconds to look it up?

I use Python, Clojure, ClojureScript, C++11, Javascript and bash regularly. I remember all of the standard library functions and third party libraries that I use a lot. But even after 15 years of using Python, I still have to look up, for example, the datetime module or what functions exist in the collections module. I still need to look up how to use the C++11 chrono library. I still haven't memorised the entire Clojure core functions (there are so many of them!) I still need to look up the DOM API for javascript (but then, I don't use JS that much).

I'm sure part of it is the context switch: if I were using one single language 100% of the time, perhaps I could memorise its core libraries. But why bother when it takes 3 seconds to look up and every professional job I've ever had its perfectly fine (expected even) to look up online documentation on the job.

So why not during an interview too? If your interview isn't testing me on what I'll be doing when I'm on the job for real, then whats the point? Testing my memory isn't a good reflection of my skill when working on real tasks.

Now, when I learned to program, I didn't have internet and worked completely from offline documentation (I learned Visual Basic, C++ and Python this way), so its not that I'm completely incapable of it, but it seems like a terrible use of my resources.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think somehow the world was agreeable enough to drink the Pair-Programming KoolAid. Not sure what you mean. In 25 years, my latest job is the only one that pair, and even then it's only a few teams in a very large organization. I don't think your AB test makes much sense. The two practices are orthogonal. Complementary, but orthogonal. If I had to take one over the other, I'd to TDD, or at least strive for excell…

> Not sure what you mean Try enlisting services of a consulting company such as ThoughtWorks, Accenture etc. Talk to the people who are already using such consultancies. Every single job interview I have had this year involved a pair programming session and lists pair-programming as a "culture-fit" requirement. The very latest one I had to go to, I had already warned the recruiter that that is not my strong point but…

Pair programming neatly sidesteps a number of problems, when done well. For a team, it helps to spread knowledge among the team, encourages people to follow the team discipline, gives a second pair of eyes on any bugs and gets people up and running faster.

done well is the tricky bit. You need people who get on ok with it, social skills need to be developed, and you need discipline around not committing code which hasn't at least been reviewed. Social skills is the hardest part IME: knowing you can ask for a break, some time to think, or to split for some research before resuming work as a pair.

Re: A Method I’ve Used to Eliminate Bad Tech Hires

#490
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been in situations together with clients deploying a product, them presenting it for their managers, orpreparing for a big demonstration, and something goes wrong due to some unforeseen environmental factor you couldn't have imagined or predicted, and breaks in a way you don't expect, despite the weeks of testing you've done. You've got your main client staring over your shoulder, arms crossed saying fix it, and…

"You damn well better be able to code under pressure... And like a freaking ninja" Being able to 'code under the pressure of a deadline' is very different from 'solving a tricky problem with someone staring right at you'

Being able to code under pressure when the world is burning is also different to working under pressure of a deadline. Or rather, being on the last day of a 30 day deadline isn't the same kind of pressure as being told you have an hour to complete a complex task.

Not everyone needs to be able to work well when the world is burning. Its not part of many jobs. However, if it is part of your job (eg your the guy who has to fix stuff at 4am) then I see nothing wrong with asking candidates to do timed work in an interview. I just think most jobs don't or shouldn't require this.

Post reply on HN