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

Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

chrlschn.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 286 posts

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#191

Post by joelfried »

yreg wrote: post #148
ikura wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what does it say? It depends on the definition of tenure... if tenure is defined as a closed interval (i.e. defined only for developers who've joined and then left) then it means that, of the developers who have departed, none had wanted to grow with the company, or the company had let them go. For a startup company this might not be a good sign. If tenure is defined as the length of time the developer had worke…

> then it means that, of the developers who have departed, none had wanted to grow with the company, or the company had let them go. For a startup company this might not be a good sign. What. Of course that "of the developers who have departed" all have left/been fired, that's a tautology. How is it "not a good sign"? Or is it supposed to be a bad sign that there even is a person who is not working there anymore?

I think parent meant:

Assuming tenure is defined ONLY for those who have already left, 2 years is a bad sign. For a 3 year old company, if that definition is used, it is indeed pretty bad. It means that _of the people who are leaving_, people stay a couple of years, then bounce. This means people stick around long enough to get past the warmup of new employment, get used to your stack and tech, then bounce for greener pastures.

The very important metric this leaves out though is what percentage of the company actually left. If there's 7 people in this 3 year old company and only one person left last year . . . that says almost nothing. Any single person can leave for a great variety of reasons. You'd need a decent sample for this to matter.

The flip side definition of "tenure" is worth considering though: if the average tenure of 2 years includes people still working at the company, there are a lot more variables to content with before you can know anything. A 3 year old company could have an average employee of it have been working there for 2 years and not a single person who joined the company having ever left (e.g. if at year 1 there was a decent amount of hiring). I think this is probably why parent wanted to restrict the definition (and why it's worth thinking about this angle) - because otherwise the company ramp up and trajectory and hiring patterns become hidden variables and you can't glean anything out of the tenure numbers on their own.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#192

Post by Tao3300 »

indymike wrote: post #69

We use this process, and it has helped us hire some great developers without having to use third party staffing and headhunters: 1. Post well written job post on major job boards. 2. Immediately reply via text to every applicant (yes, we have opt in on the application) 3. Initial screening including several knock-out questions via text. Immediately let candidate know if they are not selected and why. 4. 30 minute can…

> Bring a side project, show us how it works.

"As you can see, it's based on a I-IV-V chord progression..."

"Usually I try to take advantage of the negative space, but it's not cheating to add a little white gouache in spots like this..."

"...and here you can see that I did more than 12 reps, so next time I'll up the weight."

"When she makes that face she might be pooping. If you ask her and she says 'HHHNNNNNO!' she's trying to hold it in, so bring her knees up like so..."

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#193

Post by mock-possum »

I interviewed for a place earlier this year that had the best process I’d ever seen - they paid me to come in and pair program with their team for half a day, then took me out for lunch to chat with the CEO and CTO. It was nice!

I probably should have taken that job offer. It was hybrid, not remote, and the pay and benefits were a little lacking compared to my other options - but in retrospect, they might have been a better fit than where I ended up.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#194

Post by dmoy »

sithlord wrote: post #137
indymike wrote: post #69

We use this process, and it has helped us hire some great developers without having to use third party staffing and headhunters: 1. Post well written job post on major job boards. 2. Immediately reply via text to every applicant (yes, we have opt in on the application) 3. Initial screening including several knock-out questions via text. Immediately let candidate know if they are not selected and why. 4. 30 minute can…

>5. Interview and code review session. Bring a side project, show us how it works. So you are filtering out candidates that have families or lives outside of work that do not spend their free time coding?

Yes that is precisely what happens here. It's intentional.

It also doesn't scale up high enough, because the pool of candidates is smaller. It's a big part of why you won't see large companies hiring this way, typically. The other big part is that big companies have lawyers who see potential for lawsuits due to discrimination.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#195

Post by ziddoap »

allo37 wrote: post #167
ziddoap wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing education credits is pretty far from "bring in a hobby project for code review for this interview". Is there even a CE credit available for coding up a hobby project (and who from)? Completion of a course, attending a lecture, attending a lunch & learn, etc. are the CE credits I am familiar with (spanning a few different professional bodies).

Sometimes you can declare "self-learning", depending on the order. But anyways, that's not really my point: My point is just that in professions it's not uncommon to be expected to perform some kind of extracurricular activities related to your job. Often software "engineers" aren't members of a professional order, but I'd argue that the idea still applies. Tbh learning by working on a hobby project is way more appea…

>My point is just that in professions it's not uncommon to be expected to perform some kind of extracurricular activities related to your job.

If my employer _expects_ me to do something related to my job, I get paid for it. I really wish we'd all stop normalizing working for free.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#196

Post by LeafItAlone »

voiceblue wrote: post #93
lotsoweiners wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 7. Background checks start in parallel with on-boarding. First week is spent with business unit teams to learn what the company actually, really does. Yikes!!! I’ve never heard of a potential employer giving offers before background check. Do you tell candidates this before they quit their current jobs?

Exactly. A lot can unexpectedly go wrong during a background check, some companies ask employees for (very old) W2's they may not have, etc. There was a time when I worked at and a new co-worker suddenly disappeared without a trace, and I was told in confidence by a VP they "were not who they said they were" which I presume means they failed a background check. This was during growing pains, they were probably doing…

Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though.

If it’s fully communicated that the background check happens in parallel and the new hire doesn’t expect anything to pop up, it seems like a good option (provided the employer is reasonable about trying to solve unexpected inaccuracies that may arise).

In my last two positions, I’m pretty sure my employment contract included a section indicting that at any time they can do a new check on me. And I believe my most recent one explicitly asked if I expected anything to come up.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#197

Post by gambiting »

indymike wrote: post #188
gambiting wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing the background check after the offer is fine, it's insane that they do it after the candidate already starts the new job. So what, I leave my current job to come work for you, and in the first week you tell me "sorry you failed our background check" and let me go? Who the F would ever agree to this kind of risk? >>8. End of first week, we occasionally have to let someone go on background issues Yeah, that's bon…

This is normal for non-tech employers. It is novel in tech, but not something that is bonkers in other sectors. We're able to have developers on the payroll three-four weeks before offers are out by competitors.

I wonder where you find developers desperate enough to accept such conditions - I'm not sure I'd want to work with them.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#198

Post by devwastaken »

indymike wrote: post #69

We use this process, and it has helped us hire some great developers without having to use third party staffing and headhunters: 1. Post well written job post on major job boards. 2. Immediately reply via text to every applicant (yes, we have opt in on the application) 3. Initial screening including several knock-out questions via text. Immediately let candidate know if they are not selected and why. 4. 30 minute can…

In the U.S. you'd get title IX'd eventually. All feedback will be used against the company. This is why leetcode was spawned, to weed out the 99% in a way where nobody can claim discrimination. The last 1% can be picked with discrimination by failing the undesired candidates, the "not a culture fit".

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#199

Post by gustavus »

xwdv wrote: post #127
joeframbach wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can bring my kids in but I don't think I could tell you how they work. I've been in this industry for almost 20 years, but I don't have side projects, because, well, see above.

Freelancers can quickly build out some side projects for you to use on your resume if you wish. It shouldn’t be a big deal.

That seems super dishonest and the kind of thing that would get you in big trouble if discovered. Hell if you're going to lie like that might as well lie on your whole resume.

Re: Interviews in the Age of AI: Ditch Leetcode – Try Code Reviews Instead

#200

Post by adastra22 »

reidjs wrote: post #186
adastra22 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

…why would you need an old W2?

People lie about job history

So you reference check with the company’s HR department, no? There is way too much info on a W2 that no future employer should have.
Post reply on HN