We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work • Hacker News Board

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#101

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

kieselguhr_kid wrote: post #99

ummonk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's no effort to quantify what "technical" or "communication" skills are - these are left to the interpretation of a the interviewer." And yet, these scores are measuring something and averaged across tens of thousands of technical interviews, you have enough statistical power to average out the particularities of each interviewer. I'm sorry you find the results repugnant, but the results are what they are. And…

It's not the results I find repugnant, it's the assumption that the results have any real world validity. The _something_ they're measuring is as likely to be demographic biases as it is technical or communication skills.

> it's the assumption that the results have any real world validity

Of course it has real world validity. It has real world validity regarding how well people are likely to do in tech interviews.

You can feel free to say that the way the tech industry does interviews is bad, or biased, or has all sorts of problems. But having vague measurements, such as "technical" or "communication" skills sounds very accurate to how tech interviews are actually done, in the real world.

All the moral outrage everyone is having about this, seems to have nothing to do with the accuracy of the report, which is about measuring tech interview performance. And it instead seems to be regarding the tech interview process in the industry, in general.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#102

Post by WYepQ4dNnG » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

nvarsj wrote: post #72

WYepQ4dNnG wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My strategy is simple: I do interview practice by simply interviewing with companies that I am not really interested in joining. That allows me to practice not only the technical interview but also all other steps involved. Last time I interviewed, I did 7 of these interviews, targeting: startups, pre-ipo, mid public companies, 2 of the FAANG I would never work for ... I did that while prepping for interviewing at th…

Simple but really time consuming. Experienced engineers with responsibilities outside of work don't have time for that nonsense. It's hard enough to do ONE interview, let alone do tons of fake interviews in preparation. No other industry is like this - once you've proven yourself as an experienced professional/exec, if you want to swap to another company, you just have a chat.

I agreed, but it served the purpose of landing me a very good job. I don't think I am ever gonna job hunting again.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#103

Post by b20000 » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #78

b20000 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the process is incredibly inefficient and disrespectful. people have already paid for university degrees and getting a degree is no joke, certainly not at a european university. graduating without programming skills is impossible. what companies should do is ask you to walk them through a piece of code of your choice and discuss that and/or hire you for a month as a contractor and pay you a fair market rate.

> graduating without programming skills is impossible I’ve encountered many who graduated from bachelor and even PhD programs without programming skills (even from European universities), so your statement is false. It also seems pretty weird to assume that a degree or certificate is foolproof for demonstrating programming skills. That seems like a lack of critical thinking skills.

well, where i graduated, people DID have those skills. so you are wrong.

besides, companies already ask what university you went to and could get your records and individual class grades and use that combined with number of people fired that had the same degree to figure out if they want to hire you or not. after all, we are in the era of data science?

and instead of paying recruiters lots of money for shuffling word documents around, they can use that money to pay prospective candidates for a month. it will be cheaper.

the real reason for coding interviews is to wear you out so they can pay you less. the problem is that people go along with this clown show instead of simply walking away and doing something else.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#104

Post by lowbloodsugar » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

How is it that Amazon was better than both Facebook and Google overall, but worse when comparing Technical, Problem Solving and Communication. What are the other undisclosed ratings that makes Amazon better overall?

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#105

Post by sorry_outta_gas » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #57

paxys wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people put too much effort > spend a reasonable time like a month Spending a month on interview training is exactly what I would consider unreasonable effort. Here's a scenario – I have worked at big tech company A for a decade writing backend code. Big tech company B has many openings for senior backend coders, and is desperate to fill them. B's recruiters are hounding me every day to consider a switch. The job lo…

Have you ever ran interviews? I have, and there's an incredibly wide range of candidates, all of whom with fantastic pedigrees, but some of whom are completely incapable of demonstrating their problem-solving ability. Likewise, some candidates have poor pedigrees, but make it clear to me that they can think, communicate, and code. I'm not saying that some of my rejections can't do that. But I can't measure what I did…

I have, but I just have the canidate brainstom the solution to a problem which gives me an idea of their range, ask about what they have worked on and what they would like to work on

has worked out well so far tbh most of these interview processes are overengineered and geared towards nonsense

it's funny as a side-effect our teams are probably the most diverse and well balanced across skill level I've seen in my carrer too

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#106

Post by kieselguhr_kid » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #101

kieselguhr_kid wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the results I find repugnant, it's the assumption that the results have any real world validity. The _something_ they're measuring is as likely to be demographic biases as it is technical or communication skills.

> it's the assumption that the results have any real world validity Of course it has real world validity. It has real world validity regarding how well people are likely to do in tech interviews. You can feel free to say that the way the tech industry does interviews is bad, or biased, or has all sorts of problems. But having vague measurements, such as "technical" or "communication" skills sounds very accurate to ho…

It doesn't necessarily say anything other than "where you work now has some predictive value for how well you'll be perceived by interviewers" in which case these aren't "top performers", they're "people with jobs" and it's just regurgitating a truism about how it's easier to get a job if you have a job.

I'm not buying this as a moral outrage question, I'm wondering if this is adding anything meaningful for us to look at or if it's just a surface-level puff piece masquerading as an analysis.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#107

Post by leeny » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

TurkTurkleton wrote: post #93

leeny wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. Yes, the skills are left to the interpretation of the interviewer, but most of our interviewers are senior engineers at FAANG. We've done quite a bit of work internally to make sure your interviewers are well calibrated, and we have a living calibration score for each one (calibration is based on how the interviewees they interview end up doing in real interviews). The interviews in question are a mix of…

> Also, if I ever use "rockstar" or "ninja" in my posts, I hope someone finds me on the street and punches me in the face. I'd deserve it. Are you sure you'll never find yourself blogging about bands' flamboyant frontmen (or frontwomen), or covert agents in feudal Japan?

HAH.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#108

Post by paxys » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

subsubzero wrote: post #77

Dropbox was known as a hard place to interview since 2014, the tech companies that had the hardest technical interviews are Quora, Palantir and Dropbox(honorable mention fog creek)(this was from a few years back so things may have changed). Just because the company makes it extremely difficult to get in does not mean the company is generally all around awesome or pays great or employs the greatest engineers. It optim…

Yeah "we are more selective and exclusive than Google and Facebook" was Palantir's whole schtick when they originally took off. And a lot of very smart engineers bought it.

Turns out it takes a lot more than a high leetcode bar for your interviews to run a successful company.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#109

Post by i_love_music » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #59

What this really tells me is that the best engineerineers at Dropbox are looking to quit.

Yes, best interpretation yet. This data is whack. I would take it all with a massive planet size grain of rice.

Re: We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work

#110

Post by leeny » Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 5:37 PM UTC

kieselguhr_kid wrote: post #94

leeny wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here. Yes, the skills are left to the interpretation of the interviewer, but most of our interviewers are senior engineers at FAANG. We've done quite a bit of work internally to make sure your interviewers are well calibrated, and we have a living calibration score for each one (calibration is based on how the interviewees they interview end up doing in real interviews). The interviews in question are a mix of…

Is there any statistical reason I should assume an interviewer at FAANG has some kind of special insight into what good technical and communication skills are? Were any attempts made to adjust for demographic biases? Is it possible, for instance, that Dropbox engineers are disproportionately taller white dudes with nice hair? I know that sounds a bit unserious, but all of those factors would increase the likelihood o…

no, we didn't adjust for demographic biases because, look, we're an anonymous platform. we periodically survey our users to get demographic data, but it's not something we ask in the app because we've never been able to resolve "tell me your race & gender" with "hey we're anonymous, and you'll be judged on your performance and nothing else".

last thing i want is to perpetuate stereotype threat inadvertently. it's possible to do this right, i think, but we haven't gotten there yet.