21–30 of 300 posts
It'd be interesting to see whether the interview brainteasers translate to job performance, especially where being able to solve lateral thinking and analytic problems is important for doing well at the job. That might explain why such questions are used during the job interview.
The single most effective interview question I ask: "What do you want to do?". I drill down on that to a granulator level as I try to make sure the tasks, duties and overall position matches what the candidate really wants for themselves. Its followed-up with a "How would you do it?", again persisting in the discussion (not interrogation) until we both are comfortable with the sensibility and symmetry of the answers.
The "brainteaser" question type in the survey is just another type of question. If you've seen/practiced Fermi estimates, it's pretty rote. If you've never seen/practiced Fermi estimates, it will sound like a horrible trick question. I wonder how well it would work to begin with "are you comfortable with Fermi estimates?". If so, go ahead and ask. If not, _teach_, do a couple together, then have the candidate do one…
The idea is that inaccuracies in a series of educated guesses would tend to even out (though they're just as likely to compound). There is no such tendency in blind guesses, which is what most of these questions require.
If the goal is to to find out what somebody can do, state a problem and start working together to solve it. For example ask them to help you to solve some problem and guide you trough solving it.
So, there's a hidden value to these sorts of questions, but it is useful to the interviewee, not the interviewer. If they use lots of these questions, you probably don't want to work there, or at least not for the person who's asking those questions.
Such questions used in this way are extremely valuable.
One famous example of this type of questions is to find loop in a singly connected linked list. Now almost everyone knows the trick. And thanks to that, interviewers have stopped asking questions like that.
So, there's a hidden value to these sorts of questions, but it is useful to the interviewee, not the interviewer. If they use lots of these questions, you probably don't want to work there, or at least not for the person who's asking those questions.
I want to suggest that while they may learn more about me if we continue, if I don’t learn more about them then I don’t want to work here. And they will learn more about me by letting me ask my questions.
Long ago nobody knew how to interview. If you derailed it in the middle to talk about more interesting things they were almost grateful. And I would frequently get an offer.
Now everyone thinks they know how to interview even though we agree as a group that we don’t. So they show up to an hour meeting with an hour agenda and I spend half the time wondering if this question means they’re code cowboys or insane. So then I’m wondering if I’m throwing the interview to get out of laughing at them when they make an offer.
I’d like to go back to grilling hen about their development practices and their roadmap and how I might be able to help or fit in. Please.
The hardest question I've ever asked one of my shop mechanics during an interview was how does Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) in a Diesel engine affect thermal efficiency, smoke output and emissions of the engine...and that was for a full-time diesel tech at our cross town location.
id imagine if i ever started throwing out manhole cover questions or underwater airplane bullshit, i'd catch some hands before I managed to hire anyone.
As someone who does both a lot of interviewing (at Google) and gives a lot of advice on interviewing to people just starting out, this rhymes with my intuition about why some people get into interviews: even without the use of brainteasers (which, for the record, are not used at Google), the interview process is hard . People rarely come out of it without at least a twinge of frustration of humiliation. I'm not immun…
> the interview process is hard Nah. I've interviewed at a lot of places where I sort of enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate my soft skills. I can't say I'm looking forward to my FB & Google interviews(quite the opposite). My Amazon interview experience absolutely sucked(not a single question relating to the job, stupid algorithm gotcha questions). Most companies, IME, are much easier. For instance, there is a large…
My current gig interviews were all deep storage strategy conversations and hard in the sense of needing to show a lot of knowledge articulately. I left there feeling really good if exhausted.
My Google interviews were hard in the sense of embarrassing regurgitation and thinking nonsense on one's feet. Hard was being made to feel inferior.
I dont work in tech, im an engine mechanic by trade, but im fascinated to know why/how often this happens in a tech interview? Do programmers/sys admins really endure this kind of aggravation in their interviews? The hardest question I've ever asked one of my shop mechanics during an interview was how does Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) in a Diesel engine affect thermal efficiency, smoke output and emissions of the…