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

95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 299 posts

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#181

Post by bradknowles »

speeder wrote: post #117
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overcorrecting here. I've been on the other side of the table for questions like that, and the intent is to ensure that you have been in the appropriate situations before. At most multinational companies, resolving conflicts between two engineering teams is an everyday occurrence, and any new hires above entry level are expected to know how to do it. That some people manage to escape the requirement by…

So you mean, that to work in a large multinational company above entry level, it is mandatory to have worked for one in the past?

You can get that same kind of experience elsewhere. It doesn't have to come from working in a large multinational company.

Now, working in a large multinational company would help ensure you have that kind of experience, but that's not your only option.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#182

Post by knzhou »

The question is always, 95th percentile of what? I'm involved with a series of physics competitions, that winnows ~5 million high schoolers down to 5.

- 10% of high schoolers learn calculus well in high school

- 10% of those also learn calculus-based physics well in high school

- 10% of those sign up for the first round competition

- top 10% of those qualify for the second round

- top 5% of those qualify for the final round

- top 20% of those end up on the final five

Which of these stages is supposed to be "easy"? Because the conjunction of all six certainly isn't.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#183

Post by bradknowles »

speeder wrote: post #103
eshyong wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed with your points, although I wouldn't use the word "lie". "Marketing yourself" would be a better way to put it. It's not about falsely representing your experience; it's about knowing and emphasizing your strengths, and aligning that with the needs of the team.

Learned the hard way that lie is mandatory for some questions. For example: many companies insist on asking how you did "x" (for example solves a conflict of idea of solution) in situation "y" (for example between two teams in same department) and you are obliged to answer something, even if you never been in that situation (a certain multinational company for example asked me that question three times across two dif…

What I've done in with interviews where I don't have the exact situational experience they're looking for, is I recall a situation that was similar, mention that it's not exactly what they asked for, and then go ahead and answer the question relative to that experience.

Many times, when they ask a specific question, they're not hard-locked on getting an exact answer that is 100% directly related to that exact situation. They're also looking to see how you might slightly redirect the question to something that is relevant to your experience, and then how you answer that.

Of course, sometimes they are hard-locked onto an exact answer to that precise situation, and if you don't have that experience, then you're done. You're not likely to know in advance if that's the case, but at least you got more interviewing experience, and you learned of another place that you do not want to work.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#184

Post by bradknowles »

SkyBelow wrote: post #163
whatshisface wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone ever had success with simply deflecting that question? I've never been asked but I wouldn't lie or start a therapy session if I was. Examples of what I mean by deflection: "My greatest weakness is for Gouda cheese." "If I knew what my weaknesses were I would already have worked to resolve them." "Triceps." "I don't have any weakness, what are you talking about?"

The key is to lie about what is your biggest weakness, while still giving an answer that doesn't come across as a lie nor being dismissive of the interviewer/question. The political tool of answering a related but different question that has a more favorable answer plays well here, such as instead answering "What is one of your weaknesses and how are you overcoming it?"

When asked a "what is your biggest X" kind of question, I almost always wonder aloud if I am the best judge of my own biggest X, whatever X might be. I feel that then gives me freedom to answer the question relative to something that I think is a weakness that would be appropriate to the situation, and how I am addressing it.

For example, talking about being somewhat OCD about things can be considered a weakness. But for some jobs in this field, a little OCD is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#186

Post by cblum »

scottLobster wrote: post #120
SkyBelow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Based on my interviewing history I'm not in the 95th percentile of programmers - I'm routinely outright rejected and don't even land the on-site interview. And this is basically my best skill for which I've invested an enormous amount of time and energy. This means you aren't high in the 'programming interview' skill set. While related, I consider it distinctly different than the 'programming' skill set. I think it…

Why lie? Ultimately an interview is about convincing the interviewer that you can solve their problems (and extracting information to determine whether you want to solve them in the first place). Assuming you have the ability to solve their problems, it's a pure exercise in communication. Take the "Why are you looking for a job?" question. The meme response is "because I need money duh!", but if you look at in a less…

> If you don't actually have long term goals and are just in it for an immediate pay-day, well that makes you 1. A person who doesn't plan long-term, and will probably bring that same lack of planning to the job. 2. A less secure investment that will leave the moment they can get a 10% raise elsewhere. and possibly 3. Someone who doesn't really want the job and would just be miserable all the time/not be a good fit

That’s an extremely judgmental way of looking at people. Some people have long terms goals in life, they’re just not related to their jobs. They see their jobs as a means to an end, a way to make money to accomplish those other goals. And some of them are really, really, really good at what they do at work, but really they just want a paycheck in exchange for their skills.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#187

Post by hindsightRegret »

bagacrap wrote: post #58
tyingq wrote: post #9

95th percentile for an SAT score is something like 1450. That's fairly impressive to me. Feels like scoring higher might often have more to do with effort than ability. Is that excluded from the line of thought in the blog post because it's among "people who regularly practice?" Or is it that effort vs ability thing? Not impressive because you were born smart? In a totally "no effort" arena, 95th percentile height fo…

First, no, it's not that amazing if it's something every 20th person has. Second, height is not something you should fixate on. The benefits of being tall are generally over reported. In certain arenas like basketball it helps. In others, like running, pants shopping or air travel, it hurts. I think it's probably about the 12th most important factor in person to person interactions, after eye contact, body language,…

Tinder would seem to contradict you there. How often is an eloquence requirement given vs. height requirement? Sure, height is not something we should fixate on, but it doesn't mean that doesn't happen anyways.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#188

Post by bradknowles »

EpicEng wrote: post #91
scoutt wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there is a degree of luck in some people, but I'll be wary about the term genius . Personally, when someone says Genius , in some contexts, I take it like an excuse to justify the existence of people that excel doing something, just because they are born-geniuses . The fact that some of these geniuses dedicated their entire lives to improve themselves (being it by practicing on an instrument or doing math, fo…

Genius is, in my experience and from what I know of history, is something people are born with though. I've met (and worked with) exactly one person I would place near the designation of "genius". I wasn't under the impression that he didn't work hard to gain knowledge, but he just had a different way of approaching problems. I like to think I'm pretty good at what I do, but I could be struggling with something for h…

I've been fortunate to know a number of people that I consider to be true geniuses. My wife's entire family is extremely talented, but that's not the only source.

The thing I've noticed about genius is that it's just part of who you are. It flows out of your pores. You work the kinds of hours and achieve the kinds of things you do, simply because you are driven to do so, and could not be otherwise.

If you're not a genius, then no amount of practice or experience will make you one. You can get better, sure. But to be a genius, you have to start out life as a genius.

Of course, there are many types of genius, in many different areas. But all the geniuses I know fit the above description.

OTOH, our culture does throw around the term much too easily. Many people seem to mistake lots of practice or experience for genius, which is understandable because many geniuses do seem to have a lot of practice and experience. But in a true genius, the cause and effect is reversed for practice and experience versus the results achieved.

I am most definitely not a genius. But I do have a fair amount of practice and experience in certain fields.

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#189

Post by jonplackett »

jefftk wrote: post #169
jonplackett wrote: post #53

This blog is in the bottom 5%-ile for readability and layout.

At least on mobile I find it much easier to read and faster than almost anything else I see on the web. Plain HTML with a bit of CSS goes a long way!

On desktop the type is sooooo tiny!

Re: 95th percentile isn't that hard to reach

#190

Post by bradknowles »

yomly wrote: post #54
cdoxsey wrote: post #12

On the flip side. Sometimes you're just not that good at stuff despite your best efforts. In college I really struggled with math. Which was a challenge because computer science has you take a lot of math classes. In my calculus class I studied so hard for the final. Did every problem in the book. And I still just got a B in the class. At the same time my programming classes were really easy. I didn't study at all an…

I don't know anything about you so I suppose take this with a pinch of salt as I'm probably not best placed to tell you about yourself. That said, I hold a general belief that attainment in something is not dependent on your "talent" for that thing. Your "talent" determines your ability to progress in that thing without direction and/or poorly specified direction. Genius allows you to push past everything that has co…

Agreed. The teacher you have is vitally important.

I also had to take a lot of math classes, on my way to a BSCS.

The first time I took Calc I, I got a D. The teacher was the Director of the Math department, and by all reports, he was actually a good teacher. Probably a good teacher for grad students, but his style didn't work well for me.

The second time I took Calc I, I had a grad student as a teacher, and his style and method worked much better, because I really understood the material, and as a result I got an A.

Same thing happened for me with Calc III. Ironically, I got the same grad student as my Calc III teacher as I had for Calc I. And with the same result -- his style and method really worked well for me.

Now, if you really want to have your butt kicked across the room, torn to shreds, and then handed back to you, try Engineering Math, a.k.a, Differential Equations. I only barely escaped that one with my life -- and a very hard fought for C.

Post reply on HN