Been an interviewer and interviewee recently, so being on both sides of the track has given me some perspective. This is the current process that I think is fair and holistic: 1. meeting with the candidate, our manager, and some devs talking about their past exp., our company, our team, and their wants 2. Take home coding task based on our day to day work: This is linear with direct instructions for inputs and output…
> there is an optional part at the end for testing more tricky concepts. If the candidates are anything like me then any optional or bonus features will be considered mandatory. I have no way of knowing what percentage of other candidates do the optional work and so I have no way of accurately assessing the risk of not doing the optional work myself. I will ignore your suggested timebox if the optional work will take…
Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
561–570 of 675 posts
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#562If people who had to study for the LSAT, or MCAT, or countless other high-intensity selection processes realized that we sat around bitching about LeetCode interviews as the only obstacle to making more annually than some of them ever do, oy vey…
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which in practice means you put out a fake job posting where the qualifications uncannily mirror this persons resume to a tee, and you hand them the job formally after a week.
Yes, but the forms must be observed. You can't just skip the interview, or give people you like a softball interview compared to other candidates.
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree liking to ask simpler stuff first. But what about this more complicated stuff? My problem is that when we talk about stuff having more "signal" - how are we determining if those questions are giving us more signal?
My question is fairly open and allows me to continue asking significantly more complicated questions. So far, nobody has (for example) asked enough clarifying questions to determine that a bloom counting filter could potentially solve the problem- most people just store ASCII string keys in a hash table, which wastes tons of memory and requires a lookup for every string. So usually I end up after 45 minutes finding t…
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weeks? There are stories on Blind and the LC forums of people taking upwards of a year with pretty hefty real-life constraints. And why wouldn't they, given the opportunity to essentially double comp over standard industry jobs? That's a life changing opportunity if you're in a somewhat unfortunate life situation. That it's a bit of a sacrifice is the point. If you're naturally smart enough this stuff comes quickly,…
Did you, like, read my second sentence at all? Whether you realize it or not, you're advocating for keeping people who aren't already mid-to-upper-middle-class (among others) out of these kinds of tech companies. Anything that's designed to make you work hard extra, outside of work to learn separate skills just to pass interviews is guaranteed to make it disproportionately harder for people who are, for whatever reas…
Ah, you're talking about those programming jobs that never require thinking about algorithms?
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#566Earlier quoted context omitted.
> leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play. It would be amazing if leetcode were like the SAT, and you could just get one good score and then never think about it again. Anything like that would make it much lower-friction to switch between FAANGs (and friends), though, which I suspect is a big part of why they've settled on doing things this way.
That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
> leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play. It would be amazing if leetcode were like the SAT, and you could just get one good score and then never think about it again. Anything like that would make it much lower-friction to switch between FAANGs (and friends), though, which I suspect is a big part of why they've settled on doing things this way.
That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
As many other comments have indicated right here on Hacker News, professional licenses are commonplace for occupations such as plumbers, electricians, doctors, lawyers, and even many types of engineers.
I suppose that central governments (such as the US federal government) should offer licenses for myriad types of software engineers, hardware engineers, software architects, hardware engineers, and so on.
Wouldn't it help companies if they could choose to interview only candidates who were licensed as, say, a level three penetration tester (intermediate penetration tester) or a level five database architect (expert database architect)?
The whole "Let's reinvent the wheel mentality" surrounding software, The Internets, and hardware simultaneously bemuses and frightens me.
"The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." King Solomon, Ecclesiastes.
and
"I only wish that wisdom were the kind of thing that flowed ... from the vessel that was full to the one that was empty." Plato, Symposium
Why don't we simply allow unqualified, blind, inebriated people to drive automobiles on public roads at whatever speed they would like? Why don't we let a guy who watched a bunch of YouTube videos call himself a brain surgeon, and perform brain surgery on people who don't even need brain surgery in the first place? Hey, wait, i've gotta gureaat idear: y botherr haviing aany ruuules at al! Sheesh.
Without rules, men simply return to a state of nature where life is short, brutish, and mean (Hobbes).
I just found this on Google...
****** Origin of Life is Nasty, Brutish, and Short
This expression comes from the author Thomas Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, from the year 1651. He believed that without a central government, there would be no culture, no society, and it would seem like all men were at war with one another. ******
The “Wild West” mentality of folks who seem to believe that rugged individualists (not federal agencies such as the US Department of Defense) built Silicon Valley, is perched atop the same type of popular, yet nonsensical, mythology (falsehood) as Horatio Alger's famous character who was actually named Ragged Dick. (Really, Ragged Dick was the character's name, I am not being facetious) who metaphorically pulled himself up by his bootstraps to rise from street urchin to CEO (who was a wealthy industrialist).
Imagine a military, any military, anywhere, anytime in human history, that didn't have ranks, titles, and gasp... tests which members had to pass to move up the ranks. How well do you suppose a military without ranks and without tests would fare in combat? Obviously, such as military would be in a state of hopeless disarray.
Licenses are not a necessary evil; they are a good, and proper way to identify and reward qualified professionals, while simultaneously enabling "the rest of us" to know, for example, who's a mere private, whom we can walk past without batting an eye, and who's a colonel, whom must stop and salute.
Imagine a hiring manager say, "Hey, this kid never went to college, but he's a freshly minted level one software engineer, I say we bring him in for an interview."
Why should every company need to create their own initial screening tests? Imagine a trucking company that needs to hire a truck driver with a particular type of commercial driver's license (CDL). In the employment advertisements they post, such companies almost invariably include verbiage such as, "Class A CDL required" or "Must have a Class B CDL." See? The candidate must have already passed an initial screening test, by acquiring a particular type of license, prior to being granted an interview.
This is obviously a huge benefit to both candidates and companies alike because it saves both sides a lot, and I mean, a lot, a lot, a lot... of time!
These days it is comically inane that tech candidates are normally expected to take an endless stream of initial screening tests to prove their mettle to each and every prospective employer (unless they were referred, famous, or for some other reason exempted from the requirement).
Imagine a CPA (certified public accountant) being required to pass a basic auditing test before he was granted an interview for a new job. Why would a company ask a CPA to take such a test? If a candidate is a CPA, then (unless, for example, he cheated on his CPA test, or suffered some sort of memory loss) he has already proven that he has a substantial amount of knowledge about auditing.
Yes, of course companies should administer their own tests. But professionals licenses can, and do, enable both candidates and companies to avoid the sort of initial screening test which companies commonly require of software engineering candidates. Currently initial screening tests, such as LeetCode, are a response by hiring companies that are typically deluged with a sea of unlicensed (and almost entirely unqualified) candidates, all of whom claim to be qualified.
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can however assess how smart somebody is Are you saying the Leetcode-style interview assesses how smart someone is?
Yes, being able to understand and apply algorithms and data structures requires some intelligence. I know we try to stay away from the “we’re smarter than you” vibe here because it’s gross, but pretending leetcode style questions don’t require some degree of complex thought is absurd.
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would love to talk about the dating app world. It's so funny how many founders come into it thinking their "revolutionary matching algorithm" or whatever is going to make the greatest dating app ever. Until you realize that the problem is human nature, and no one wants to be told who they should match with. People want a name, an age, and a face; that's it. And anything that gets in the way of that will lead to your…
And a height.
Re: Stop Interviewing with Leet Code
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that companies are using leetcode tests for rational reasons goes against everything I've seen and experienced or read about. What I have seen, working at startups for more than 20 years, is irrational, self-destructive behavior, over and over and over again. I've worked with many entrepreneurs who have a few million dollars in the bank, and they have a great idea, but they self-destruct due to two big reaso…
I think it's quite possible that both you and the parent comment are correct. Based on my experience, you are most certainly correct that the companies using leetcode aren't following any line of reasoning, and certainly not one as sophisticated as what the parent is implying. Most decisions made by "leadership" are irrational and self-destructive as you describe there (your book looks very interesting btw). However…
Bingo. IMO this hits the nail absolutely on the head. $BigCo wants docile people who will show up and jump when they're told to jump without asking questions or making a fuss. And they'll throw a big bag of money at you to do so.
Obviously this is an incredibly narrow/limiting employment experience. But different strokes for different folks I guess