Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

hxngsun.wordpress.com

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#11
Most people hate them when they get rejected, consider them fair when they pass. Like anything, they are mostly subjective and very gameable (compare it to getting accepted at a college)

It's not remotely scientifically-objective, but most things in life aren't. I'd liken it more to dating. Both parties are evaluating each other on innumerable criteria through their own subjective lenses, and trying to reduce it a scientifically-quantifiable measure is dubious.

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#12
post #6

Personally I'm very defensive against more academic interview processes (like Google's) because I'm a college drop-out and feel some amount of insecurity being ranked among peers with better academic backgrounds who might excel at such tests. In truth it is a personal failure of mine, and something i'll eventually get over through study/training the next time I'm looking for a job (hopefully years from now). Sure it…

I can tell you from experience ppl with college degrees go through the exact preparation process, aren't well off because they took an algorithm course 2 decades ago.

I agree. But I think there is a skillset to taking tests that can become highly developed in a college environment (where 3/4 finals exams are taken quarterly). You're more likely to get a fully grounded education, such as database and operating systems semantics (compared to the self-taught web developer who began and exists at a much higher abstraction level). It's my understanding sometimes these questions are sometimes thrown in and could be crucial to a candidates success.

Of course this applies more to fresh grads.

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#13

Most people hate them when they get rejected, consider them fair when they pass. Like anything, they are mostly subjective and very gameable (compare it to getting accepted at a college) It's not remotely scientifically-objective, but most things in life aren't. I'd liken it more to dating. Both parties are evaluating each other on innumerable criteria through their own subjective lenses, and trying to reduce it a sc…

There are real results based on how successful someone is on a job. Being dismissive that there is a problem because you think people only complain when they don't get a job is simplistic and incredibly naive.

If an interview process is completely detached from what it takes to succeed at a job, what good is it?

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#14
I would fail utterly at a real coding interview. I've been out of school too long for that crap. And also, my tolerance for it has dropped as well.

But, I'm now a dev manager so I get to sit on the other side. I've been doing interviews in the last week for a dev position and I don't subject candidates to coding. I talk with them about what they work on, one of my senior devs sits in and goes even deeper -- learning what they know without even really asking formal questions, for the most part. Past that I care more about them being smart enough and willing to learn new things, and easygoing enough to get along with the rest of the team. Hell, that's at least half of what I care about to be honest.

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#15

Whiteboarding is a waste of time in my opinion. The problems are recycled anyway (reverse singly linked list, needle in haystack search, etc). It doesn’t give you a useful signal about the person’s coding ability when they can just do rote memorization on a toy problem.

I try to ask a simple question that pretty much any half decent developer should be able to solve quickly. Then we have a conversation about it and discuss why they did it, possible problems, how they'd handle new requirements, etc. It's more important to me that they can speak intelligently and collaboratively than memorize a bunch of puzzles. It is tough to determine if a candidate will be a good fit in the hour they give us.

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#16

We absolutely should. Here's what I'm doing to help change it: I'm launching a new venture that will try to help connect great engineers with great companies. Companies with great teams, competitive benefits, and the belief that engineers shouldn't have to go through bullshit interview practices and shouldn't have to study 150 hours for a round of interviews. The flow is pretty simple: a quick Skype/Hang out call to…

So your solution is to have people work a second for free with the hope that maybe they'll get a job after a while?

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#17
Absolutely. I've seen companies send an intern to do a technical interview for someone with over 10 years of experience. The intern's feedback was that the guy had a lot of experience, but made some syntactic error on a whiteboard exercise so it was a pass. I don't know who gets to dictate shit like that, but it's absolutely broken. For reference two days later I overheard the same intern saying that JavaScript was fully synchronous.

As a fun aside, I've seen people send out HackerRank evaluations for entry level positions and I think that's ludicrous.

The best interview I have had was me Skyping with one of the devs and he gave me a link where we were able to share a browser session (for the life of me I can't remember the name of the site), but he described the problem and as I typed he could see what I typed. There was no emphasis on result that I can remember, just the process of writing code, talking it out loud and seeing code evolve and asking whether certain edge cases should be considered.

What's most broken, I think, is the fact that interviewing is an uneven, broken experience that's different everywhere you go because no one really knows how to interview. I haven't seen any company take metrics on whether their process is good or helpful or filters out too many people or not enough.

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#18

We absolutely should. Here's what I'm doing to help change it: I'm launching a new venture that will try to help connect great engineers with great companies. Companies with great teams, competitive benefits, and the belief that engineers shouldn't have to go through bullshit interview practices and shouldn't have to study 150 hours for a round of interviews. The flow is pretty simple: a quick Skype/Hang out call to…

It's really easy to say "interviewing is broken" and get a bunch of people excited and agreeing. It's almost like saying "politics is broken," everybody agrees but doesn't agree how to fix it.

Re: Ask HN: Should we change the way we do software interviews? What's stopping us?

#19
post #16

We absolutely should. Here's what I'm doing to help change it: I'm launching a new venture that will try to help connect great engineers with great companies. Companies with great teams, competitive benefits, and the belief that engineers shouldn't have to go through bullshit interview practices and shouldn't have to study 150 hours for a round of interviews. The flow is pretty simple: a quick Skype/Hang out call to…

So your solution is to have people work a second for free with the hope that maybe they'll get a job after a while?

To be fair to OP, I think there's ways to structure throwaway projects in such a way that it contains flaws and they're useless to a real company but complex enough to gauge experience/familiarity, etc. I don't think GitHub would be optimal since then people could clone these throwaway projects and create brain dumps.
Post reply on HN