371–380 of 651 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's really not that deep, I'm worried if you really cannot understand. I don't code outside of work, I'm not interested in doing it. I'm good at software engineering, not passionate about it. I have a bunch of other hobbies. There's no reason I'd have any code to show now or at any point in the future. It's like asking a dentist interview candidate to show you examples of fillings and crowns they did at home as a…
[flagged]
The best interview process I've ever been a part of involved pair programming with the person for a couple hours, after doing the tech screening having a phone call with a member of the team. You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job, and be a good coworker. This process worked so well, it created the best team, most productive team I've worked on in 20+ years in the industry,…
"We need to run through hundreds of candidates per position, not a half dozen" But you don't! You only need to find the first person who is good enough to do the job. You do not need to find the best person.
The best interview process I've ever been a part of involved pair programming with the person for a couple hours, after doing the tech screening having a phone call with a member of the team. You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job, and be a good coworker. This process worked so well, it created the best team, most productive team I've worked on in 20+ years in the industry,…
Very few people doing this sort of interview (they tend to be our best, most empathetic developers) are likely to cut a multi-hour planned process short after a few minutes. It will eat at least an hour of their (very expensive & valuable) time. Also how am I supposed to filter the 100's of AI-completed assessments? Who gets this opportunity?
Idk if I'm even being sarcastic here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The replies are addressing the reality of the interview landscape that fails to live up to your theory of how whiteboarding interviews should be. It's all well and good that you and other "wise interviewer" commenters on HN actually grok what the point of interviews are, but you are unicorns in the landscape.
I don't think you made it to the last paragraph either: > I know many interviewers also didn't get it, and it became just "do you know the trick to my puzzle". That pattern of failure is a good reason to deprecate white board interviews, not "I don't write on a whiteboard when i program in real life".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've (unfortunately) been interviewing the last two months and the main pattern that I've noticed is that a) big companies have terrible interview processes while b) small companies and startups are great at interviewing. Big companies need to hire tons of people and interview even more so they need some sort of scalable process for it. An early stage startup can just ask you about your past projects and pair program…
I hear this all the time, but I have yet to experience it. It may be because the small companies that I interview with are all startups, but I have yet to be able to get a call back from any other kind of small company. And the startups I do interview with have a full FAANG interview loops. There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.
Was path dependency for careers always this bad?
The best interview process I've ever been a part of involved pair programming with the person for a couple hours, after doing the tech screening having a phone call with a member of the team. You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job, and be a good coworker. This process worked so well, it created the best team, most productive team I've worked on in 20+ years in the industry,…
Very few people doing this sort of interview (they tend to be our best, most empathetic developers) are likely to cut a multi-hour planned process short after a few minutes. It will eat at least an hour of their (very expensive & valuable) time. Also how am I supposed to filter the 100's of AI-completed assessments? Who gets this opportunity?
We also did not require the employers doing the interview to be our most senior team members. They probably did it more often than most people, but often because they volunteered to do it. Anyone on the team would be part of the loop, which helped with scheduling. And, remember, we were working on actual tickets, so in a lot of cases it actually helped having the candidate there as a pairing partner.
For a little extra detail, the way we actually did it was to have 2-3 pairing sessions of up to 2 hours apiece. At the end of the day, all the team members who paired with the candidate had to give them the thumbs up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We need to run through hundreds of candidates per position, not a half dozen" But you don't! You only need to find the first person who is good enough to do the job. You do not need to find the best person.
You need to run through hundreds of candidates to find someone marginally qualified. I am not exaggerating.
Does "marginally qualified" mean "Ivy League Competitive Programmer PhD" or something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dislike pair programming interviews - as they currently exist - because they usually feel like a time-crunched exam. You don't realistically have the freedom to actually think as you would in actual pair programming. i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview, but it's pretty realistic of real life work and entirely a non-problem. It's probably even good to test for at i…
Hiring doesn't scale, period; deal with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this all the time, but I have yet to experience it. It may be because the small companies that I interview with are all startups, but I have yet to be able to get a call back from any other kind of small company. And the startups I do interview with have a full FAANG interview loops. There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.
Yup. You can check out of FAANG anytime you like, but you can never leave. Was path dependency for careers always this bad?
And most refused to look at anybody deviating from their ideal background in my experience.