Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#641

Post by shados » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

XCSme wrote: post #588

Interviews are a joke and are as useless as randomly selecting people. I did 14 interviews at Google (two applications, first one after being contacted by them, for second one I contacted them to try again). As far as I could tell, I passed most of them, and for some of them I even provided new, unique solutions that the interviewers were amazed by. That being said, both times I got reject in the last step before the…

Some states have GDPR-like laws that will absolutely allow you to request a copy of your assessment. That can be a good way to know exactly what went short (most companies don't expect this and will get VERY coy about what they wrote, but the law's the law~)

Either way, more interesting is your first line:

> Interviews are a joke and are as useless as randomly selecting people.

I don't have a source, but I read a study once that showed most engineering interview process is roughly as accurate in assessing success as flipping a coin. I didn't look into the methodology, but based on experience I'm willing to believe it.

Other fields don't have that issue because they don't use interviews as a proxy for performance. Either they use portfolios (eg: designers) where you can CLEARLY see the person's skills, either they use credentials (certifications, or just resume). The interview is just to assess those data points and to make sure expectations are clear.

In some fields (eg: trades like carpentry), people will look at the person's history and hire them. Then based on actual performance over the first few months, they may get let go or even demoted. Can you imagine a big tech company DEMOTING a software engineer? Blasphemy! But really, that's the only way to properly assess an employee.

Hire them based on their experience and claimed skills, have clear expectations, adjust after a few months. Then you can give a shot to the person with low experience who claims they "promise to work very very hard and learn quickly". You can have apprenticeships too! And we can save everyone the trouble of silly useless interviews.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#642

Post by solidasparagus » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

u67583 wrote: post #365

solidasparagus wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people are naive, they just don't have a better solution. Most established professionals are not interested in a 10 week trial period after which they might be back on the job market.

You say that as if your boss can't wake up one morning and fire you because they don't like the way you pour your coffee. The only thing that changes is how much paperwork they have to do to make it happen.

This in no way jibes with my experience as an employee. I know the value I provide, how long it would take to replace me and how much the company has invested in me and there is zero chance that I get fired tomorrow. Theoretically my boss could wake up and fire me, but practically there are many reasons whey they "can't". Similarly, it is very rare to see someone get fired in the first 3-6 months on the job unless they are ridiculously unprofessional or unqualified. There are high-profile companies where it could happen, but they are noteworthy because it is so out-of-the-ordinary.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#643

Post by leafboi » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #186

leafboi wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been arrogant for years and you know what? So have I. I and many, many people in this industry have been doing this for years. What's different from you and many other people is that you admit and face your bias rather than justify it. I'm seriously curious what google interview board members have to say about this study. People like Gayle Laakmaan have been saying things to justify the whole process for years…

Gayle Laakman specifically has a business empire dedicated to help people get through the process. Regardless of the actual merits of the process her opinion is going to be biased.

I don't think it's relevant. Her business is designed to get you to game and pass the interview regardless of whether or not the interview is effective.

Therefore her business interests are orthogonal to her opinions on "interviews." She may still be biased, but I don't think business interests color her bias.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#644

Post by rsweeney21 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

quadrifoliate wrote: post #467

rsweeney21 wrote: post #448

I'm a ex-FANG dev that started a recruiting company, so I am VERY familiar with the arbitrary tech interview process. I'm a huge proponent of contract-to-hire. Even started a company* to make it easier for companies to offer contract-to-hire. Now before you dismiss the idea because you are "too good" to do C2H hear me out. Everyone knows that actually working with someone on the job is the only way to get an accurate…

> It's crazy, I know, but I think it would drive dev salaries up if it weren't so hard to change jobs because of the tech interview gauntlet we've created for ourselves. How does C2H help me jump jobs as a dev who is already employed? Since I already work 9-5, typically my only free days are my weekends. I might be willing to work for a few weekends if it would lead to a hire, but are those really compatible with wha…

What you do is you use COBRA to keep the insurance you currently have and just build in the cost to your hourly rate. Companies expect top pay more per hour for a contractor than a salaried employee.

So you are paying for your health insurance yourself, but you keep the same plan.

There's still the risk of them not bringing you on at the end of the contract or terminating it early if it's not going well. But I think the upside of easier interviews and trying out a team out weighs the downside.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#645

Post by rsweeney21 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:08 PM UTC

katzgrau wrote: post #559

rc-1140 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but C2H sounds like a great idea to you because you have the luxury of having already earned FAANG money on your side. You'd have to pay me considerable money for me to consider taking a C2H role so I could cover health insurance across the usual suspects (general health, dental, vision, specialists just in case). Like many people outside of this website (and enough here), I don't have the luxury of FAANG mone…

In my experience, with C2H you typically earn more in the contract phase than you would with a base salary, which is helpful in covering benefits or out of pocket expenses. Maybe that's not always the case, but salaried employees usually earn 80% or less what their contract counterparts do. And you kind of have to bomb the contract phase to not be given the offer, unless there are other circumstances at play (budgets…

This is correct. Company pay much more per hour when you are on contract because they don't have to cover FICA, insurance, etc.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#646

Post by jlokier » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

RogerL wrote: post #322

candu wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've definitely repeated that line in the past to justify tech industry interviewing practices - but sometimes it goes beyond "setting a high bar" to something more toxic: an interviewer using the interview as a chance to show off how smart _they_ are, rather than assess the candidate; deliberately creating high-stakes "pressure cooker" environments because, you know, that's just how we work here and they should get…

I think it goes far beyond that. I'd bet dollars to donuts that you will find both protected and unprotected groups over represented in the false negative pile. Do women have more test anxiety then men? If so, guess what your process is selecting for. Do minorities have more self doubt than majorities. Same thing. And so on. And that doesn't address the file drawer effect. I'm 54. I can code a binary tree, hash table…

> I can code a binary tree, hash table or what have you, if I have to, but I am not as practiced as somebody fresh out of school, because that heavy lifting is done by libraries, and I'm busy contributing original mathematical algorithms that no one ever asks about because they don't have the background to understand the explanation.

This made me chuckle, because it's absolutely how it is.

Some other comments here talk about how nobody creates new algorithms these days unless they are a researcher. But it's not true at all! Like you I'm creating new algorithms and other tricky techniques all the time, but I'm not fresh on the stuff I learned at school... or so I thought.

I have been really surprised to find some screening interviews recently asked me shockingly trivial questions. So simple that I stumbled over myself trying to simplify the answers, thinking "I know too much about this topic and need to keep it simple", and "can these questions really distinguish candidates?".

I did the TripleByte online test recently and found the questions much simpler than I expected, including those in languages I've never seen before. That is not TripleByte's reputation. I see people writing about how difficult they found the questions. (Admission: I didn't score all 5s, but I can't figure out why unless it's timing as I think I answered them all correctly.)

So I'm thinking, perhaps it's not so bad, people just make it sound bad because there's a wide variation in people's knowledge, abilities and expectations.

If you are thinking you might apply for something like a FAANG or other hard-reputation company, and feeling put off by the horror stories, I would say, just take a look at the old stuff a bit for a refresh, then give it a try and you might be pleasantly surprised to find their reputation is because people less skilled than yourself found it hard. Their "hard" might not be hard for you.

You'll probably still fail the interview if it's a FAANG because they are so selective, but I would bet my dollars to donuts that it would be more refreshing than miserable if you're not attached to passing.

I know your point isn't about yourself, it's about bias in hiring, including bias due to perception by the candidates, but I wanted to address that side point about feeling there's no point applying. That sounds like anxiety to me. (I have it too, I'm trying to get over it.)

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#647

Post by rsweeney21 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #595

rsweeney21 wrote: post #448

I'm a ex-FANG dev that started a recruiting company, so I am VERY familiar with the arbitrary tech interview process. I'm a huge proponent of contract-to-hire. Even started a company* to make it easier for companies to offer contract-to-hire. Now before you dismiss the idea because you are "too good" to do C2H hear me out. Everyone knows that actually working with someone on the job is the only way to get an accurate…

C2H is terrible for the employee and you should know that, as a professional headhunter. Negotiating your salary upfront is likely going to give you the best deal you can get. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you can "show your value" to improve your negotiating position. Your first few months on the job are usually when you are at your lowest performance, since you are learning the company's processes. That is…

That's not what we've seen. For example, one of our customers raised salary bands across their entire software division to accommodate the salary demands of the contractors they wanted to convert to salaried.

In most cases companies have a ball park salary in mind for the position, so when it comes time to convert there is some room for negotiation, but no surprises.

Companies are so desperate for good software engineers that they aren't going to let a good dev go after several months on contract in order to low-ball you and save a few thousand dollars.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#648

Post by TrackerFF » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

dpc_pw wrote: post #36

That experiment assumes that SWE job is exclusively about solving technical problems, so we can just "lock the candidate in a private room and let them solve it". In reality human to human interactions, sometimes stressful, are part of the job. Customer & PM requirements, technical debates, giving feedback, explaining your technical solutions, etc. are common. Maybe part of the problem is the education that does not…

Yes, but real-life situations are rarely as high stakes as interviews, on the individual level.

Sure - you can find yourself in very stressful situations at work, but I have never in my life been in a situation where you're given 45 mins (or hours, for that mater) to solve some problem, or you get fired.

Simply but, there's an incredible discrepancy between the stakes at play, between interviews and work.

To put it a bit more extreme - but to hammer down the point: Imagine working on some problem, with no help whatsoever, and that in front of you, there's some guy pointing a gun against you.

Just imagine how stressful that must be, and how much of your focus is distracted on reading that guy.

Same goes for interviews. For a lot of candidates, that interview is their way out of poverty or lower-class living. And the judge and executioner of your future, is sitting in the same room as you. It's a very stressful situation - probably one of the most stressful situations in your life.

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#649

Post by bllguo » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

nend wrote: post #607

dcow wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe we should interview with small take-home tasks to be submitted with some write-ups to test how people research, reason, and write-up problems, rather than writing code on the spot on a whiteboard. ...but maybe that's just me. I'm a huge fan of giving people tasks that somewhat resemble a real world problem they'd likely encounter or at least aligns categorically with their proclaimed resume feats and more impo…

I don't like take homes for two reasons: 1) It's less time spent talking with potential coworkers. Which for me, coworkers (and how we work together/get along) determine about 90% of how satisfied I am with my job (assuming pay/benefits are standard). 2) You're still going to require me to take a day off and stand up in front of a whiteboard anyway eventually. Every take home I've done is an early stage filter. The f…

2. is the biggest thing for me. Exactly the same experience. I would be happy with take-homes if companies actually trusted them. The biggest reason I'm willing to do them is to avoid the whiteboarding.

Of course from their perspective I could be getting someone else to do it for me or something. Or maybe the take-home leaked (which becomes more probable as the company grows).

Re: Tech sector job interviews assess anxiety, not software skills: study

#650

Post by rsweeney21 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

SkyPuncher wrote: post #530

x87678r wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because you are "too good" to do C2H hear me out No I dont want to quit my current role until I have a secure job. I'm not going to c2h to be told six weeks later I'm on the street.

Yea, this guy loves C2H because it makes him a lot of money. It "solves" a problem for employers - which is all he really cares about. Good employers don't use C2H because they recognize talented people have plenty of competing offers for direct-hire. If I'm quitting my current job to come work for you, I'm not taking on the financial risk for a job that YOU decided needs to be filled, set all of the evaluation and s…

We make roughly the same whether you go C2H or direct salaried. C2H interviews generally take much less time, so we do have an incentive, but so do the companies and candidates.

You don't have to take a C2H job, but for some people that don't have stellar resumes or are bad at interviews, C2H will give them access to more opportunities.