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

Hired – Technical Interview Score

refdash.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#41

Post by troycarlson »

bit_logic wrote: post #24

Have we reached the tipping point yet? How much worse does the technical interview process need to get before the industry finally decides enough is enough? When this all began, it was with the justification that it's not about getting the right answer, it's about seeing how you think and approach a problem. Companies don't even pretend this is the case anymore. It's now just expected rote memorization of algorithm p…

Any suggestions for how to improve the process? I've been conducting a lot of technical phone screens lately and I'm always interested in how to make it better for both parties.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#42

Post by CobrastanJorji »

What degree of control do I have over the sharing of my interview score? If I sign up for an interview with Refdash and get an outcome of "1.0/4, do not hire," is that information going to be sent to every employer Refdash works with?

Individual interview results for a single candidate vary wildly from day to day. I wouldn't want one bad day to sink my chances with a large number of companies at once; I'd much rather interview with each company separately if that were the case. Using this company would just be far too risky, even if I was 90% sure I'd ace the interview.

On the other hand, if my score was entirely private, and I needed to actively grant each company that was interested permission to view it, I would view this as a useful tool. A bad score would provide useful personal feedback for improving my interview skills in the future, and I'd be happy to send along a great score to potential employers.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#43

Post by ng12 »

sidlls wrote: post #37
ng12 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is one reason why most interviewing is a subjective clusterfuck (not just software, I suspect). This is why I get a laugh out of people complaining about whiteboard-style interviews. Far and away tech still has one of the most intensely meritocratic hiring processes. Not perfect, sure, but better than almost every other industry. The majority of high-skilled jobs rely heavily on pedigree, education, social sta…

This is why I get a laugh out of developers who think tech has a meritocratic hiring process. The majority of real engineering (I've come to the conclusion that most of software development in the context you would identify with isn't engineering except inasmuch as the Orks in Warhammer are engaged in the practice) doesn't grill candidates to solve math or engineering trivia on a white board in 45 minutes or less.

Please, do tell what lofty work you do that deserves the holy moniker of engineering.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#44

Post by JustSomeNobody »

bit_logic wrote: post #24

Have we reached the tipping point yet? How much worse does the technical interview process need to get before the industry finally decides enough is enough? When this all began, it was with the justification that it's not about getting the right answer, it's about seeing how you think and approach a problem. Companies don't even pretend this is the case anymore. It's now just expected rote memorization of algorithm p…

And the college grad will potentially be cheaper.

"If you have kids, you're too old to code and should move into management." This is basically what the industry is saying.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#45

Post by nxsynonym »

Would an industry-approved certification be a viable replacement for on the spot technical interviews?

Somebody feel free to change my view - but I don't see why there can't be a standardized certification (could be broken up into specific areas of tech/comp sci/programming) that proves the applicant is competent in the industry standards, and just focus on the personal/soft skills/culture fit of the interview.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#46

Post by mkozlows »

bit_logic wrote: post #24

Have we reached the tipping point yet? How much worse does the technical interview process need to get before the industry finally decides enough is enough? When this all began, it was with the justification that it's not about getting the right answer, it's about seeing how you think and approach a problem. Companies don't even pretend this is the case anymore. It's now just expected rote memorization of algorithm p…

Memorization? It's a factorial function. You shouldn't need to study or memorize anything to implement a factorial function. If you can't come up with this algorithm off the top of your head, that is legit telling something about your problem-solving ability.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#47

Post by sidlls »

ng12 wrote: post #43
sidlls wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I get a laugh out of developers who think tech has a meritocratic hiring process. The majority of real engineering (I've come to the conclusion that most of software development in the context you would identify with isn't engineering except inasmuch as the Orks in Warhammer are engaged in the practice) doesn't grill candidates to solve math or engineering trivia on a white board in 45 minutes or less.

Please, do tell what lofty work you do that deserves the holy moniker of engineering.

I work in data science and machine learning. I interview and as the lead on the team I strongly advocate for practices that are very close to the engineering practices in real engineering, insofar as it's possible. My academic background included engineering (aerospace) and most of my undergrad friends went that route. We all have a good laugh at the practice of "engineering" in the software industry now and again.

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#48

Post by throw401 »

kyberias wrote: post #20
rafiki6 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why ask people to write "code". What are you testing?

Personally, I think that asking people to write code in interviews brings very _limited_ data. However, from my experience, it usually is also a very _strong_ signal. Narrow but strong. For example, if a candidate cannot implement a simple algorithm (like the factorial here), he very likely has poor skills. If he can implement it without too much trouble, that's a good sign, but he only proved that he probably has so…

And is the signal still strong if candidate has a bad day or for some other reason cannot get the right focus in that specific moment?

Moreover, I think it's highly unprofessional to reinvent the wheel by writing most algorithms for production. I always first look for a bullet proof library for that.

Won't you use a calculator for 345 x 27?

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#49

Post by justboxing »

troycarlson wrote: post #41
bit_logic wrote: post #24

Have we reached the tipping point yet? How much worse does the technical interview process need to get before the industry finally decides enough is enough? When this all began, it was with the justification that it's not about getting the right answer, it's about seeing how you think and approach a problem. Companies don't even pretend this is the case anymore. It's now just expected rote memorization of algorithm p…

Any suggestions for how to improve the process? I've been conducting a lot of technical phone screens lately and I'm always interested in how to make it better for both parties.

I've been attending a lot of phone screens, and in-person interviews for a Senior Software Engineer ( C# / .Net ) Position. Here's some feedback. YMMV.

1. Don't ask questions that are hard to explain over phone. For instance I was asked if I've used Lambdas in C# and I said, "Yes, extensively.", next question was. "Explain to me what a Lambda is.". I gave the textbook definition for it, and he was expecting more, so I simply said "It's hard to explain lambdas, I can show you some source code I've written and that way I'll be able to explain it better.". I thought that was it and that I would be 'screened-out', but I was moved to the next round of on-site interviews!

2. Do ask questions about how the candidate has used the technologies that the job requires, and ask them to explain how they designed and implemented their most recent solution, and where they used what technology, and how. After initial answer, drill deep into areas that are important for the job posted, and from the answers, you can get a fairly good assessment of whether the candidate should be moved to the next stage of the process.

3. After passing the tech phone screen, I've received and completed 3 take-home coding exercises (1 each from 3 different companies), and in 1 of those companies, I was subject to white (water-) boarding exercises on site in addition to the take home test. The white boarding seldom goes well because of the environment and nature of the whole thing.

I found the take home exercises to be better than on-site white-boarding because the former is closer to how a future employee would work, than the latter.

Also, how a candidate does on algorithm and data structure questions is a false positive (or negative) because these can be practiced, rehearsed, perfected and hence gamed. Coding exercises, or specific question on the candidate's most recent project, on the other hand, cannot be 'gamed' and even if it was, you could tell from listening to the response, or from reading the code...

Hope this helps!

Re: Hired – Technical Interview Score

#50

Post by mrtksn »

bit_logic wrote: post #24

Have we reached the tipping point yet? How much worse does the technical interview process need to get before the industry finally decides enough is enough? When this all began, it was with the justification that it's not about getting the right answer, it's about seeing how you think and approach a problem. Companies don't even pretend this is the case anymore. It's now just expected rote memorization of algorithm p…

I think the goal is to be able to sell engineers on Amazon. To do this, a spec sheet of each engineer is needed and all these tests are attempt to create a standardised way of generating spec sheets.
Post reply on HN