Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews” • Hacker News Board

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#351

Post by xenihn » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:30 AM UTC

apta wrote: post #283

klipklop wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has a company like Google ever released data proving this? Latino's make up a fairly large number of the people that live in the bay area (23.5% [1]) yet there are like what 3.6%[2] of those people working at google. Seems like a pretty big gap. It would be interesting to see what their application/success ratio demographics are like. 1. http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm 2. https://www.wired.com/story/googl…

> Latino's make up a fairly large number of the people that live in the bay area How many of them hold relevant degrees for job openings at Google?

I know multiple people who don't have a degree at all and have full-time SWE positions at FAANGs. One is even an engineering manager. This isn't the 2000s.

There's even a sourced 2018 article about current hiring practices trending away from degree requirements for you to peruse:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/16/15-companies-that-no-longer-...

It's not about the degrees (relevant or otherwise).

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#352

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #6

I think one of the major takeaways here is, stop asking algorithm questions [1]. Everyone. Just stop it. In my opinion, and modest experience (I've done several dozen interviews, so there are plenty more experienced then me, but I'm at least not new, plus nearly all interviews were for my team so I had to live with the results!) it isn't that hard to come up with small sample questions related to what the job actuall…

> Knowing the literal, actual algorithm to the point that you could simply open up a terminal and bash it out yourself is rarely important in this era.

Yeah. In a world where Google exists (or even where Knuth exists), what's the value in having algorithms memorized? Knowing the characteristics, sure. I agree that that's important. But the algorithms themselves? Why? I've got better things to do with the memory space.

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#353

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:38 AM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #72

LordFast wrote: post #61

I've personally seen no correlation between people who can solve problems and program when watched by another person versus people who can solve problems and program when left alone with a real problem, and ample of time to noodle on and resolve it on their own. The same is true for writers: most are likely not to be interested and/or able to do their best work when watched over the shoulder by another person. The /r…

>The /real/ question is this: should software be a factory job? It has all of it: creative jobs, theoretical jobs, and factory-like jobs. White collar and blue collar jobs at the same time. What we suck at is admitting which jobs are which types and assigning the labor accordingly (as well as setting targets).

Side note: Most of us work with our hands. We don't think of it that way. But if you break a finger, you'll find out in a hurry that you work with your hands.

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#354

Post by missosoup » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #310

missosoup wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there are legal issues with a quota (I'm legitimately not sure whether there are), then the law ought to be changed. That would be quite literally destroying the anti-discrimination laws which safeguard the exact thing that you think you're arguing in favour of. Quotas implemented the way you describe are the antithesis of equal opportunity. That 'instinctual negative reaction' you come across is people seeing t…

I don't think we need to have the same rules for well-represented and underrepresented groups. A reasonable person is fully capable of determining which is which. "Reverse racism" is not a real phenomenon in 99% of cases.

What is the definition of representation? Who is the arbiter of what groups are over and under represented? What does fair representation mean if not equal opportunity?

This is a subject of entire books and hours long debates, but we can skip to the reductio ad absurdum with your line of reasoning: 99% of underwater welders are male.

Trying to 'represent' females in that occupation and push the gender ratio to 50/50 would harm all parties involved and result in a measurable number of deaths. Protected attributes are not uniformly distributed in terms of fit for job, and trying to hit a uniform quota across those attributes is naively idealistic, at best.

A less generous interpretation is that you are actually totally cool with discrimination as long as it's in the 'right direction', whatever that personally means for you. In which case you are exactly the force that you claim to be fighting against.

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#355

Post by kaetemi » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:49 AM UTC

lubujackson wrote: post #250

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I personally find some of the current (if I can call them) standards of tech hiring to be very narrow in which skills and capabilities they test. What would you propose as an alternative? I’ve been involved in training new engineering managers how to hire and interview. Everyone starts with the best intentions, but reality quickly forces some compromises. The bottom line is that you only have a number of hours in w…

Honestly, the "coding" is rarely the issue. For most software engineering roles you generally want someone who can: understand problems, figure out possible solutions, decide on which is best, communicate why it is best and (importantly) be flexible when the company wants you to do some other solution. Meet all those requirements and you are a useful member at most companies. I think a general chat about a broad prob…

Reading code is the biggest problem.

Good tests, I find, are to give them a simple piece of code with minimal comments. For example, some non-standard special purpose container implementation. Then ask them to explain what the purpose of the code could be as simply and short as possible.

Either - They'll start literally explaining each line of code without understanding the whole. - They completely miss the point. - They at least figure out it's a container of some sorts. - They'll explain technically what it literally does. - They'll give you the academic term for the concept it implements. - They'll actually explain the purpose briefly in simple words.

Those last three are good, in different ways. The better ones will also spot the bugs or performance issues in the code.

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#356

Post by no_wizard » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:49 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #312

no_wizard wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Not saying they should or shouldn’t and as I noted if you can’t match salary and all other things are equal you may as well take the raise. 2. If that’s HR policy and you request for an exception and it’s denied, that may be a sign to start asking more questions. 3. You’re assuming that’s HR policy. Again, example dictates you have one option without actually thinking through how an organization could position the…

You’re probably speaking as someone who is not early in their career. But we are talking about junior developers. I’m nowhere near west coast salaries but just big city America salary for context. At my age now in my mid 40s, married, making about the average salary of a top IC in my market, with the big house in the burbs (again not bragging, any developer with 5-10 years of experience could easily afford it), with…

Well, your 12 years my senior so age is something else eh? ;) I started out at 19 working at a FANG (because of privacy and such I don’t want to drop which one) not as an engineer but doing support work. Within a year I got the chance to be a junior engineer no questions asked (basically) because my manager at the time was impressed at my grasp to “get it” when it came to application usability.

That is to say I got extremely lucky. I know that. My takeaway since (I’ve been a software engineer for ~10 years now) is that the way I was treated as a junior is what I described throughout this post, and my mentors were the ones that drilled home what the hidden costs were taking jobs based on salary, how to properly evaluate benefits etc. I learned a boat load.

So I want to preach to developers and companies alike that things can and should be evaluated differently and to avoid pitfalls that are easy in this industry

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#357

Post by inertiatic » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:51 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #228

inertiatic wrote: post #128

I don't know, hiring seems inherently broken. Not just the algorithmic part, even the part leading up to it. You have to impress a recruiter or an HR drone by listing all the buzzwords that are currently trendy. Then, even after the algorithmic questions and interviews where you prove you can DO the job, you get rejected. Every company I've worked for had trouble hiring. I'm working for a company that also has troubl…

The good way to hire is to recruit people someone has worked with before and can vouch for. If you do good enough work at a job that your coworkers will want to work with you again, you've got it made and can choose between jobs for the rest of your career. If you don't impress coworkers that way, you need to go through this crazy stranger interviews talked about here. Do try hard to avoid that!

In what universe is this true?

In all the companies I've worked for, referrals for ICs meant that these people were prioritized for interviewing, not that they skipped the process. And no one, not even the manager of the hiring manager, had enough say in hiring someone that they could simply decide to skip the process

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#358

Post by missosoup » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 5:56 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #288

drunkpotato wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve proposed this as well and it went over like a lead balloon. As did the very idea that more diversity would be good for the team. Ah well.

> As did the very idea that more diversity would be good for the team. So, while I wholeheartedly agree that diversity inherently benefits teams and businesses (different experiences will lead to new and different approaches), it's just not a very convincing argument, because it feels "mushy". Here's one that I think is better: If it's true that e.g. women have a harder time getting engineering jobs due to unconsciou…

> If it's true that e.g. women have a harder time getting engineering jobs due to unconscious bias

Cite this.

For the tech sector, in developed nations, this is nonsense.

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#359

Post by dev840 » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 6:02 AM UTC

trashface wrote: post #295

Hiring is broken, but so is all of software as a profession: 1) Terrible Algorithmic interviews, AI-based evaluations, whiteboard coding. 2) Hey you are hired! Now move to $BigCity, with expensive real estate, schools, transit and everything else. 3) So, welcome to the job. You'll be maintaining this shitty old python 2.4 CRUD app that multiple people have tried and failed to upgrade. And one of the web guys wrote hi…

this. this. this.

Re: Follow-up to “The dystopian world of software engineering interviews”

#360

Post by jknz » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 6:16 AM UTC

Criticism of interview practices is very common. However, I can't imagine that large companies that hire in the hundreds/1000s every year (say, FANG) don't have enough data to have optimized their interview practices.

These companies know in the last 10-20 years who interviewed who and the performance of everyone after hiring. With enough data you can:

- A/B test which interview questions better predict future performance

- how much each interviewer's feedback is correlated with future performance of the interviewee. Some interviewer's are likely terrible and they should not interview. Some interviewers at good at predicting future performance and they should interview much more if not full time.

- which interviewer provides biased feedback (women, minorities, etc)

Either these companies are not analysing this data and the interview practices may indeed be garbage. Or FAANG companies are analysing this data and otpimizing their interview practices accordingly and the process/results are actually as fair and good as it can be.