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

Debunking the Google Interview Myth

technologywoman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#71

Post by yoak »

roxstar wrote: post #68
Evgeny wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to believe this story In the russian versions of the story the expert usually hits the object (server, or the machine that stopped working) with a huge hammer in the carefully identified spot. The result is the same though - the system resumes working as intended. But, well, that's just the cultural differences in the ways the things are usually being fixed.

Actually you get the hammer one in automotive maintenance examples, and also if you are talking to an older generation where hitting stuff worked much better.

I grew up in a steel town and the version of the story there involved whacking with a hammer.

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#72

Post by jackowayed »

Periodic wrote: post #37
dkarl wrote: post #2

Coding on the spot might seem surprising to those outside of the software industry, but it’s standard practice. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. At least I wish it were true. I've been involved in a lot of interviews at my company, and I'm the only one who ever asks anyone to write code.

I was asked to write very little code for my current position. One of the questions was being presented with some code and figuring out what it did. I didn't realize how apropos that question was at the time. I just got done doing a series of 10 1-hour interviews for contractors for an enterprise Java web application contract lasting about 6 months. Only 2-3 of them could write correct Java on a white board for simpl…

Could you give an example or two of questions on the same level as those "simple questions"?

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#73

Post by ghshephard »

blacksmythe wrote: post #65
Periodic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked to write very little code for my current position. One of the questions was being presented with some code and figuring out what it did. I didn't realize how apropos that question was at the time. I just got done doing a series of 10 1-hour interviews for contractors for an enterprise Java web application contract lasting about 6 months. Only 2-3 of them could write correct Java on a white board for simpl…

Did you have a chance to rate the performance of the candidates that were hired that had trouble writing code at a whiteboard in the interview? Were any of them productive in a different setting? I am more inclined to give people a chance to work at a terminal (with internet access) instead of a whiteboard.

It's rare that someone who can write excellent code on a whiteboard can't do so on a terminal. The goal of an interview, in my experience, isn't usually to find a way to let the candidate shine, but find only the best person for the position.

If the candidate draws a blank writing code on a whiteboard, that indicates they have poor whiteboard skills - which is a pretty important skill to have in a team environment.

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#74

Post by ghshephard »

gcb wrote: post #60
code_duck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take a look at a candidates github account or other open source work. That might preclude the need to ask for code during the interview.

most of my github account is filled with trash that i start for one day, barely learn something completely new to me, sometime a new language, then forget and move on. if I find said thing promising, i'd usually came back some weekends later and do something more complex, but again, basically junk. oh, and did i mention nothing looks finished? Now, take anything i code behind the closed doors at my employer or i cont…

Good grief -you have a github account that you put code on. You've already put yourself ahead of 90% of the candidates applying for a position as a developer - don't sell yourself short.

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#75

Post by WalterBright »

wallflower wrote: post #40
moultano wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

probing you about stuff that even at Google's you won't be working on 5% of the time (if at all). In any highly skilled profession, 95% of the time someone with very little of your skill could do your job. The valuable part is that you can also be counted on for that 5% as well. Most of my time at Google hasn't involved any substantial theoretical work. One time though, I did have to come up with a algorithm for comp…

I'd like to believe this story (haven't found an authoritative source yet) that I heard once from a professional speaker of the FedEx main processing facility in Memphis. One day it completely stopped dead - usually it is controlled mayhem with the packages and machines running - the silence was deafening - thousands of dollars lost every minute. They brought in the best expert they could find. He investigated and we…

I actually know one that is true. The Air Force back in the 60's brought some old piston engine transports back into service. The mechanics could not get the engines to deliver the power to spec, they read the manuals, and did everything they could think of, no dice.

Finally, the AF hired some old mechanics out of retirement who used to work on them, and they promptly had them running to spec. Turns out there's a lot on how to tune them that was never written down.

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#76

Post by silverlake »

I recently got rejected by Google. Most interview questions were straight out of an algorithms book. Like write an interval tree, a hashtable, some dynamic programming question, etc. I probably failed because I misunderstood a trivial question as something far more complicated. As for the interviewers, half were quite nice but the others seemed bored and distracted. I won't try again.

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#79

Post by dspeyer »

Google interviewees are asked to sign an NDA regarding the interview questions, mostly so that no one can look smarter than they are by studying those specific questions. Some candidates do forget it and leak information, but since bullshitters sign nothing, the bs quotient is high.

Re: Debunking the Google Interview Myth

#80

Post by mavelikara »

adamdecaf wrote: post #7
dkarl wrote: post #2

Coding on the spot might seem surprising to those outside of the software industry, but it’s standard practice. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. At least I wish it were true. I've been involved in a lot of interviews at my company, and I'm the only one who ever asks anyone to write code.

I know this attitude won't win very many friends, but I wouldn't accept a position where I wasn't asked to write code during the interview. I'm going to be writing code for money and they don't want me to prove that I can before hand? That's like hiring a "farmer" from the inner-city.

+1. If I am not asked to write code in the interview, it is likely that other employees of the firm were not asked to in their interviews either. In the absence of other indicators (like open source code published by the firm), I will take this to mean that the codebase I have to work with, should I accept the position, is likely not to be stellar.
Post reply on HN