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

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

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 234 posts

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

#161

Post by hiq »

WYepQ4dNnG wrote: post #55
bckr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think interview practice with real interviewers and expert feedback is an excellent investment.

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…

Can you expand on your FAANG preferences?

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

#162

Post by rocgf »

kieselguhr_kid wrote: post #44

I'm glad to see this getting roasted in the comments, as it's a really good example of how companies put out self-serving pseudo-statistical nonsense in an effort to promote themselves. There's no effort to quantify what "technical" or "communication" skills are - these are left to the interpretation of a the interviewer. It makes no effort to show where these engineers are going, what the interview process they're c…

While there may not be any reliable measure of communication skills across the industry, the fact that the data was based on scores given my a large amount of people, that by definition means that it's accurate.

Think about it carefully - if people rate people as being good at communication, then there is no reason to quantify it any other way. There are some obvious flaws here, like the quantity of data and it's normalization, but it's basically a tautology.

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

#163

Post by overrun11 »

b20000 wrote: post #103
prepend wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You end up with a far less merit based hiring pipeline. I work at a top tech company and don't have any degree at all. The current process gives people like me a chance, yours wouldn't.

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

#164

Post by overrun11 »

ctvo wrote: post #145
paxys wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just described the entirety of the tech hiring experience. Sure some people are bonafide geniuses that can crack the hardest problems in their sleep. The majority of tech workers, however, are ones who got lucky with the specific combination of questions asked in the interview. Maybe they had seen the question before. Maybe the solution just "clicked". This is why the best strategy for acing such interviews is –…

Of course, but this is a gradient. Struggling startup may ask a question that 80% of engineers are capable of answering (through luck, exposure, experience -- whatever dimensions). Dropbox asks difficult questions, and it's hard to discern why. I don't believe the problems at Dropbox are particularly difficult relative to its peers. I don't think they innovate at a clip that's outsized, etc.. But they do this, and th…

It's easy to criticize the current state of tech interviews but I've never really heard anyone propose a better solution.

Startups ask questions 80% of engineers can answer because they don't have many applicants. Dropbox might have 50 decent applicants who could all probably do the job for every opening. How do you decide who gets it? Ask an easier question and you end up with way more passes than you have openings.

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

#165

Post by overrun11 »

smrtinsert wrote: post #132
rch wrote: post #2

Looks like Dropbox has trouble retaining tech talent?

I remember seeing a job description that was something like must be self starter, enjoy high energy postive environment! enjoy coding in RoR etc To me this reads like legacy Rails codebase people are too scared to touch that's always causing fires. No thanks.

There has never been any rails code at Dropbox

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

#166

Post by overrun11 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #138
visarga wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm beginning to think that the industry somehow settled on this approach not so much as a skills verification process but, by making the process so onerous on the candidate, talent retention is a lot easier. There are plenty of applicants who just can't do the job, and the cost of restarting the search all over again is high. It's important for a team to vet their new hires.

> applicants who just can't do the job While that definitely matches my observations, the current interview grind: a) filters out people who can do the job too and b) somehow also manages not to filter out people who can't, either.

Is that avoidable though? It's not perfect but I'm not convinced any of the alternatives are any better.

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

#167

Post by overrun11 »

gcheong wrote: post #92

Does this happen in any other field? If I was a doctor and wanted to work at some other company, would I need to study the MCAT every year in order to pass a screening interview based on one possible question? What's the equivalent in other fields? Closest I can think of is an acting audition but even then they give you the script beforehand. I'm beginning to think that the industry somehow settled on this approach n…

Software engineering is the only field I know of where someone with zero pedigree or education can make as much as a doctor. If you can pass a grueling technical interview then you can get a high paying job (200-500k+) no matter who you are or what your background is.

The tradeoff is that you have to go through the same grueling process every time you change jobs. I think the tradeoff is well worth it and would not like to see software become more like medicine where you have to put in 10+ years of schooling to prove your worth.

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

#168

Post by gcheong »

overrun11 wrote: post #166
commandlinefan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> applicants who just can't do the job While that definitely matches my observations, the current interview grind: a) filters out people who can do the job too and b) somehow also manages not to filter out people who can't, either.

Is that avoidable though? It's not perfect but I'm not convinced any of the alternatives are any better.

I’ve had interviews where I implemented a small feature on an existing application. It didn’t take any longer than your typical hour-long algorithmic implementation interview. Given that we don’t have post-hire data on any of these practices, my hypothesis is the one that most closely resembles the actual work would give the best signal as to whether that person would be able to do the job or not.

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

#169

Post by overrun11 »

kieselguhr_kid wrote: post #44

I'm glad to see this getting roasted in the comments, as it's a really good example of how companies put out self-serving pseudo-statistical nonsense in an effort to promote themselves. There's no effort to quantify what "technical" or "communication" skills are - these are left to the interpretation of a the interviewer. It makes no effort to show where these engineers are going, what the interview process they're c…

> It perpetuates the myth that there's something really special about Silicon Valley engineers

Why are you sure it's a myth? My prior would be to believe that engineers at the most exclusive companies with the highest hiring bars that pay 3-5 times more than average would be better programmers. The article is just one data point confirming what intuitively should be true.

If Silicon Valley engineers are no better than anywhere else then someone should notify the execs at FAANG, I'm sure they'd be interested to know they are dramatically overpaying for talent.

I don't understand what is so uncontroversial about this. SV companies recruit the best talent from around the world and it's where the best talent wants to work. Similarly, the best financial talents are in NYC and London, the best actors are in Hollywood etc.

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

#170

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

overrun11 wrote: post #169
kieselguhr_kid wrote: post #44

I'm glad to see this getting roasted in the comments, as it's a really good example of how companies put out self-serving pseudo-statistical nonsense in an effort to promote themselves. There's no effort to quantify what "technical" or "communication" skills are - these are left to the interpretation of a the interviewer. It makes no effort to show where these engineers are going, what the interview process they're c…

> It perpetuates the myth that there's something really special about Silicon Valley engineers Why are you sure it's a myth? My prior would be to believe that engineers at the most exclusive companies with the highest hiring bars that pay 3-5 times more than average would be better programmers. The article is just one data point confirming what intuitively should be true. If Silicon Valley engineers are no better tha…

There are capable people who don't want to live where 1000sqft home costs $1M. Never mind all of the other problems with the region. Selection bias doesn't prove anything about the people you aren't selecting for.
Post reply on HN