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

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

#401

Post by zimpenfish » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:31 AM UTC

jimthrow wrote: post #243

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #240

I've mentioned this before. I have a portfolio that consists of six figures LoC of code, across dozens of open-source repos; most of which I am the 100% sole author. I've written a fairly large open-source system that is rapidly becoming the world standard for a specific (rather small) demographic. It deliberately uses old and rather primitive technology (which is a big reason for it becoming a standard). I've writte…

When you get rejected, it’s not about you. There’s just too many high quality candidates and too few positions. It’s just the inevitable outcome of a vast oversupply of talent

> There’s just too many high quality candidates and too few positions.

That would be believable if the same positions weren't being advertised for a year or more[1]; e.g. I've had one position[2] sent to me at least 5 times in the last year by different recruiters.

[1] In London, at least. [2] Interesting work and a job I'd want but unfortunately the corporate culture is 100% no-go for me.

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

#402

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #275

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #240

I've mentioned this before. I have a portfolio that consists of six figures LoC of code, across dozens of open-source repos; most of which I am the 100% sole author. I've written a fairly large open-source system that is rapidly becoming the world standard for a specific (rather small) demographic. It deliberately uses old and rather primitive technology (which is a big reason for it becoming a standard). I've writte…

"I just set up my own gig, where I do the stuff I want to do." I think maybe this is the unspoken issue with interviews - if a candidate was any good, they wouldn't need a job at all! So it's a given that all the people who apply are no good - the interviewer just needs to find the reason.

I suspect there is an element of truth in that. After all the people who are most likely to apply are those who are persistent but have been rejected by previous interviewers.

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

#403

Post by Aeolun » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:39 AM UTC

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…

In the interviews I’ve taken so far, I’ve generally asked candidates a very simple recursion question.

Then I recently had an interview myself (thank god for no pressure) where I was asked to do more or less the same thing myself, and I totally blanked. It took that to make me realize it probably wasn’t a good problem.

At the same time, pretty much all the candidates we’ve hired have worked out.

I’m starting to think it might be easiest to just hire anyone that applies and doesn’t seem crazy.

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

#404

Post by wpietri » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:40 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #268

wpietri wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can't invest a ton in mentoring employees if people don't actually want to keep working there. But one of the best ways to ensure programmers stay is to make sure they keep learning. And one of he best ways to make sure your senior people always have something new and interesting to tackle is having them mentor junior people to take over the things seniors are bored with.

And why would they stay just to “keep learning” if they could both keep learning and make more money? Corporate America is infamous for HR policies where they will only give current employees a maximum percentage raise while hiring new people at market rates (salary compression and inversion). Even if you as a manager want to keep good developers who were juniors but have now leveled up, your hands are tied.

As I said, it only works if people want to keep working there. Paying market rates is important for that.

However, most of the people I know who start looking for another job don't do it because they suspect there's more money somewhere else. They do it because they've grown less happy with the job.

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

#405

Post by SomewhatLikely » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:45 AM UTC

inertiatic wrote: post #385

jjav wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would you propose as an alternative? Easy. Just talk to people as would-be peers. They want to find a role they can succeed in. You want to find someone who can succeed in the role. I interview by just talking about their past projects (based on resume). You can't fake your way through a friendly technical dialogue if you haven't done it. (Pre-requisite: the interviewer must be technically competent. This is w…

This would be my way of interviewing, at least for anyone who's not a junior. What troubles me is that people will say this allows all your biases to run wild, but my feeling most of the time is that these biases will find a way to express themselves unless you remove humans from the hiring process entirely.

Especially when the company says they aren't necessarily looking for the most bit perfect compilable code or even that you output the optimal algo on first try. Rather they want to see how you think through problems. Well now you're back at a subjective assessment again which inherently can have hidden biases.

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

#406

Post by tasuki » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:53 AM UTC

omar_a1 wrote: post #349

giovannibonetti wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would you propose as an alternative? In my company (totally remote) we decided to automate hiring (also remote) as most as possible and we are happy with the results. We also value the candidate's time very much so we made the hiring process very straightforward. It works like this: - First the candidates must do some online tests, which are mostly multiple choice questions. The subjects are logic, english and…

Sorry, but what you've outlined above doesn't show that you value the candidates' time. You require two rounds of technical interviews before any human contact. It's asymmetrical. By automating the first two steps, you've made it so that you can waste as much of the applicants' time as you want without expending any further time or resources on your part. Also, from experience, I've never come across a two hour takeh…

> Sorry, but what you've outlined above doesn't show that you value the candidates' time. You require two rounds of technical interviews before any human contact. It's asymmetrical. By automating the first two steps, you've made it so that you can waste as much of the applicants' time as you want without expending any further time or resources on your part.

I understand this was the goal. You can either waste your company's time or the candidates' time. I don't think there's a way to preserve both. Given that your goal is helping your employer, this seems like the sensible thing to do.

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

#407

Post by svartkanin » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:57 AM UTC

I've worked as a SE for 8y, in 4 different countries and in both product development and consultancies.

As it had been pointed out here by most people interviewing sucks. It sucked in every country for me (some more than others). The process was superficial and usually didn't give the employer a decent picture about my skillsets nor did I get a decent picture of the company's environment/tech/culture, meaning a "we want to implement a new data analysis platform and ML on top of our web app" was only a nice attraction statement.

Both parties tend to tell some fairy tales what they think the opposite would like to hear just not to miss out on a possible opportunity. It's a bad habbit that I've done myself in the past because I don't have employees knocking on my door every day with a contract in their hands.

One of the issues is probably that a company doesn't know the person who is being interviewed. Just because someone got hired by 5 companies before and has 10y experience doesn't mean they know their stuff and therefore everyone has to go through the same tidious process again and again.

Couldn't there be an evaluation of someones problem solving skills and ability to built systems, that has a value for all (or certain years) of upcoming interviews? Lets say I take a test, that evalutates my "can solve problems" and "can built awesome cloud tech" skills and provides a certificate for it which is valid for 5y. Of course you'd also able to update your skills whenever you've learned something new!

So every company looking for a new employee searches in that pool of professionals with pre-evaluated soft and hard skills for a suitable match. Not like LinkedIn where you can claim whatever you like but rather evaluated by other professionals who will vouch for you.

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

#408

Post by omar_a1 » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 10:58 AM UTC

SomewhatLikely wrote: post #405

inertiatic wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be my way of interviewing, at least for anyone who's not a junior. What troubles me is that people will say this allows all your biases to run wild, but my feeling most of the time is that these biases will find a way to express themselves unless you remove humans from the hiring process entirely.

Especially when the company says they aren't necessarily looking for the most bit perfect compilable code or even that you output the optimal algo on first try. Rather they want to see how you think through problems. Well now you're back at a subjective assessment again which inherently can have hidden biases.

After failing several of these "let's see how you think" technical interviews, I've come to the conclusion that the way I think is deeply and fundamentally flawed.

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

#409

Post by missosoup » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 11:12 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #399

missosoup wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' depends entirely on who you ask. I think most people making a case for 'good' discrimination don't realize that the existing 'bad' discrimination originated exactly the same way. We need to strive to eliminate discrimination, not perpetuate the swing of the pendulum that's been going back and forth for hundreds of years. Pushing down on some demographics…

That's not at all true. The historical discrimination did not originate from people saying "yes discriminate against me in the interests of general equality". In fact, to return to the start of this thread: historically much discrimination was the result of bigotry. It's very unlikely that hiring quotas (or similar) are the result of bigotry. Your conclusion also doesn't follow at all, at least not without some argum…

You're conflating hiring discrimination with a broad and nebulous notion of inequality. Everyone agrees that equality is a good idea, but it doesn't map to your notion of how to address hiring discrimination, if such a thing exists. You're proposing deliberate and harmful inequality in the name of fixing some perceived other inequality. It doesn't work.

The way to create equality is to manipulate on levers that individuals can control, e.g. taxation brackets, education incentives, government investment into particular industries. Passing up the best candidate for a job because they didn't have some inherent unchangeable attributes that you're arbitrarily favouring is the opposite of creating equality.

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

#410

Post by svartkanin » Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 11:15 AM UTC

z3t4 wrote: post #279

achievingApathy wrote: post #238

I will never forget the time I was given a coding "challenge" and sent home with the instruction to send it back whenever I felt it was complete. This sent my OCD into overdrive, of course. For the better part of two days straight I coded my heart out and came up with this (what I thought perfect) robust system with all the bells and whistles. Heard nothing back. At all. My calls into the recruiter went unreturned an…

Some companies also use the interview as free consulting. Remember that you are a professional. Don't work for free.

How would you work around this issue if they give you a challenge? Ask for reimburse you for the time spent?