81–90 of 336 posts
When I was younger I was able to go into interviews with the mindset of, "it's their decision and it's okay if they don't think I'm a good fit." It made interviewing easy, and in a lot of cases even enjoyable. Unfortunately for reasons still unknown to me, I'm not able to get into that mindset anymore. Interviews are extremely stressful now. No amount of rationalizing will help.
Of course it does, it's not a gender problem, who said it was? How many of you have heard your friends and colleagues tell you, "wow I'm so lucky I got through that interview, there's no way I would pass it if I did it again today." You shouldn't walk away from a good interview feeling like you nailed it. An interviewer should push you to your limits and the more you know, the more they should push. It doesn't mean y…
I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks an interviewer should assess whether the person can do the job, and that an interviewer pushing someone to their limits seems like an inappropriate activity for the employer-employee assessment process.
In one conception, "a job" means that your boss sets out a list of tasks for you to do, and you do them, consistently and reliably. As long as you do what you are told, you will be paid the salary agreed upon. If you do it long enough, you will be promoted. Under this conception, there is no reason for a job interview to do anything other than ascertain whether you are qualified to do the tasks listed in the job description.
In the other conception, "a job" means that you're responsible for looking around the organization, identifying ways to either generate more revenue, make customers happier, or eliminate inefficiencies, and then go do them. Your boss's job is to remove roadblocks and introduce you to coworkers that can help you. The specific tasks you will be working on are unknown at the time of hire, and it is part of your job description to discover them. If you generate value for the organization, you will be promoted. Under this conception, it makes sense for a job interview to push you as far as possible, because if it turns out you're more qualified than the position, the position can be extended so you have more impact and get correspondingly higher compensation.
When people with the first conception apply to jobs with the second conception, they wonder why their employer demands so much of them, why there are no clear guidelines, and why they don't advance while people hired after them shoot right by them and end up becoming managers. When people with the second conception apply to jobs with the first conception, they get bored, step on other peoples' toes, make political enemies, and end up getting kicked out.
Adding to the complication, your boss is many companies is far more likely to hold the second conception of what a job is, because that's how he got promoted. Good managers can adjust their managerial style to make both types of employees productive, but bad managers assume everyone is just like them and complain about how employees are so lazy these days, while those employees complain about how their manager doesn't know what he wants.
Also complicating things, the first type of job is dying out. In many cases, they're being replaced by automation, and the jobs themselves disappear in favor of machines. In other cases, their boss is being replaced by an app, and those jobs become contract positions for Uber or Postmates or DoorDash or Amazon.
The practice interview point strikes me as odd. In large, because I have never done one. Do folks really typically do that many practice interviews? I don't even know how to study. I sometimes consider it, but have never spent more than an hour prepping for an interview. :( It worries me, because I know that interviewing is a skill. But are we not setting folks up to over index on that skill such that they have diffi…
Instead of literature go read some of the top posts at /r/cscareerquestions . Students are expected to put in tons of hours "grinding" study sessions for interviews. Recently there was a post about a new grad who felt he wasn't doing very well at his job because he spent to much time practicing for interviews
You should never study for interviews. If the company isn't asking questions relevant to the work or you can't answer those types of questions then it's best to not work there.
General interview skills are different than studying CS problems.
“More experienced engineers are more accurate about their interview performance...” Dunning–Kruger effect returns again! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Dunning-Kruger shows up in some front page discussion almost once a day. What does that say about the "effect"?
I've gone through interviewing recently and it was a rather frustrating experience. I thought that the most challenging thing will be some tricky algo questions I don't use in real life or never heard of it. It turned out that the problem was to get to the tech interview at all by convincing the interviewer to believe that I actually have the experience that I claim. Didn't always work. It was mostly because they did…
Yeah, I read about "impostor syndrome" on here, and maybe the people in question really are suffering from that, but I've never felt like an impostor: I know I'm good at this; I've been doing it successfully for three quarters of my life. Statistically speaking, I'm probably not the best that there ever was, but I do know that I'm at _least_ good enough to do a phenomenal job at whatever programming position I'm interviewing for. I personally suffer more from "I feel like you're just sitting up there on your high horse looking for any reason to reject me" syndrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always been interviewed by multiple people - I think 12 was the high, and 4 was the low. When I do end up getting the job, I always wonder... which of them said yes and which said no?
12 people! What were they interviewing you for, a role as the code messiah?
Of course it does, it's not a gender problem, who said it was? How many of you have heard your friends and colleagues tell you, "wow I'm so lucky I got through that interview, there's no way I would pass it if I did it again today." You shouldn't walk away from a good interview feeling like you nailed it. An interviewer should push you to your limits and the more you know, the more they should push. It doesn't mean y…
Granted, this is HN, but this viewpoint is very tech-engineer focused. Most jobs aren't like this at all. Chicken-parts processor interviews aren't like this, para-legal interviews aren't like this, firefighter interviews aren't like this, teacher interviews aren't like this, etc. For the vast majority of jobs out there, your certifications, references, and resume are more than enough (especially in right-to-work states in the US).
> If you're rejected from the role, most likely you didn't reach the bar they needed you to be at, or you failed at the behavioral parts. Or, the interviewers you had weren't properly calibrated, which isn't to say anything about you other than bad luck.
Hanlon's Razor states that the mostly likely explanation is not conspiracy, but stupidity. Most of the time, your interviewers are just dumb/inexperienced/busy/assholes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if I'm the only person who thinks an interviewer should assess whether the person can do the job, and that an interviewer pushing someone to their limits seems like an inappropriate activity for the employer-employee assessment process.
I feel like there are two different conceptions about what it means to "do a job" that are co-existing within the economy, and a lot work-related offense and disgruntlement occurs because of mismatched expectations. In one conception, "a job" means that your boss sets out a list of tasks for you to do, and you do them, consistently and reliably. As long as you do what you are told, you will be paid the salary agreed…
As someone with no credentials or official training, and someone who also works at a big megacorporation as an engineer, imposter syndrome hits me fairly hard, especially during interviews. It's really hard to compete with the people who actually have proof that they know what they're doing, and I'm usually interviewing for a job that has a strict requirement of a "bachelors in CS, Math or Physics, Masters preferred"…
I wouldn't worry about being an Impostor.
It doesn't help that job ads are wanting "Top 3% only!" or "Only top 1% Ninja Rockstars need apply!". Kind of reminds me of the market for singers or concert pianists, you absolutely need to be the best, even imperceptibly worse makes you unemployable. Should those of us who aren't top 5%/didn't go to a top school just find another industry, one where sub-perfect work doesn't actively make other people's jobs harder?