Live data from Hacker News

AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

kanenarraway.com

521–530 of 651 posts

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#521
post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ”There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.” Many smaller companies have noticed that former and wannabe FAANGers are looking for FAANG-type jobs, and are not good fits in their niche. Small companies often have more uncertainty, fewer clear objectives, less structure, and often lower pay. They’re not a good substitute for megacorps.

And then there's people like me who have been at startups, midsize companies, tiny small businesses and FAANGs. Not everyone at a FAANG is purely motivated by the amount of money that they can get. I’m looking for a smaller company because I’m tired of the FAANG mentality personally.

> I’m tired of the FAANG mentality personally.

As someone that never had a desire nor ever made an attempt to work at any of those companies, do you mind elaborating on the mentality of such places?

I'm just your boring below-average to average dev, so I know I'm not cut for those types of places, but it never truly bothered me anyway. Any reason that I can personally think as to why I would work for such a company would either be due to my own egotistical desires or for monetary reasons, but those were never strong enough to actually compel me.

I am just mainly curious about two things:

1. Is working at those places all it's cracked up to be?

2. Assuming one had to work hard to get into such companies, was the juice worth the squeeze?

I've often wondered if one's experiences for these companies is often something akin to the old advice of, "Don't meet your heroes." In other words, was the conflicting dyad of expectations vs. reality present?

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#522
post #248

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,…

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…

I do 1hr pair programming interviews for my company and you have to strike a balance between letting candidates think through the problem even when you think it won't work (to see their thought process and maybe be surprised at their approach working/see how quickly they can self-correct) and keeping them on track so that the interview still provides a good signal for candidates who are less familiar with that specific task/stack.

I'm also not actually testing for pair programming ability directly, moreso ability to complete practical tasks / work in a specific area, collaborate, and communicate. If you choose a problem that is general/expandable enough that good candidates for the position are unlikely to go down bad rabbit holes (eg for a senior fullstack role, create a minimal frontend and api server that talk to each other) it works just fine. Actually with these kinds of problems it's kind of good if your candidates end up "studying" them like with leetcode, because it means they are just learning how to do the things that they'll do on the job.

> maybe even on an actual feature

I don't think this would work unless the feature were entirely self-contained. If your workaround is to give the candidate an OSS project they need to study beforehand, I think that would bias candidates' performance in ways that aren't aligned with who you want to hire (eg how desperate are they for the role and how much time outside of work are they willing to put into your interview).

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#523
post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have to stop optimizing people to hell and back and start committing to a few at a time. Sounds like a really good idea to me.

That doesn’t answer the question. For me as a job applicant even in the best case I would need to do 3 to 5 interview interviews. The same is true for companies in the best case it will take at least 3 to 5 interviews to find somebody. Are they supposed to have 3 to 5 temporary staff for weeks at a time? How much time should that take per interview? How would somebody that currently has a job manage that kind of time…

Yeah, you would need to change your expectations, I figured that much was obvious.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#524
post #511
post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, accept the overhead as the cost of hiring the right people?

There's even more overhead on the people being provisionally hired. Yes, sometimes things just don't work out. But, if someone quits a job and maybe relocates, that's a big personal cost. It's just the way things work in some limited contexts (e.g. professional sports) but it's not and shouldn't be the norm. I suppose you can give a huge sign-on bonus with no claw-back provision, but that's never going to happen in m…

I'm fully convinced the way to make better hires is to invest more, which will be more expensive. Which wouldn't be a problem unless we expected something else. It starts with quitting pretending the current process is working, or even close to optimal.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#525
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect many people who don't have strong networks for whatever reason resent that. To which you could probably tack on not having gone to the "right" schools or having a public portfolio.

also hard on introverts who already get punished in workplaces that promote ppl based on proximity and visiblity.

As one, I have to say there's really nothing about being an introvert that prevents one from being affable and available. The idea is that human interaction does not boost the introvert's energy the way it does the extrovert's, not that it's impossible.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#526

I was asked by an SME to code on a whiteboard for an interview (in 2005? I think?). I asked if I could have a computer, they said no. I asked if I would be using a whiteboard during my day-to-day. They said no. I asked why they used whiteboards, they said they were mimicking Google's best practice. That discussion went on for a good few minutes and by the end of it I was teetering on leaving because the fit wasn't go…

> The offered me the job. I went elsewhere.

I am so happy that you did this. We vote with our feet and sadly, too many tech folks are unwilling to use their power or have golden handcuff tunnel vision.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#527
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because coding interview questions aren't so much assessing job skills as much as they are thinly veiled IQ tests. I think if it was socially acceptable they'd just do the latter.

Plenty of companies administer IQ tests. The reason everyone doesn't is that it doesn't work well.

Nothing works well but IQ tests predict job performance better than anything else.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#528
post #136
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We CANT test you effectively on your programming skillbase. So we test on a more relevant job skill, like can you have a real conversation (with a whiteboard to help) about how to solve the problem. Except, that's not what happens. In basically every coding interview in my life, it's been a gauntlet: code this leetcode medium/hard problem while singing and tapdancing backwards. Screw up in any way -- or worse (and…

They generally do not know what they are looking for. They are generally untrained, and if they are trained, the training is probably all about using leetcode-type problems to give out interviews that are sufficiently similar that you can run stats on the results and call them "objective", which is exactly the thing we are all quite correctly complaining about. Which is perhaps anti-training. The problem is that the…

> The Western philosophical mindset doesn't handle this sort of thing very well.

Mind elaborating on that?

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview In all pair programming interviews I have run (which I will admit have been only a few) I would fail myself as an interviewer if I was not able to guide the interviewee away from a dead end within 15 minutes. If the candidate wasn't able to understand the hints I was giving them, or just kept driving forward, then they would fai…

Exactly! Who calls "researching how to build X, but then letting my pair-programming partner fall down a rabbit hole so I can feel superior" "pair programming".

Way too many career and remuneration focused techbros. Often driven by bullshit management and stack ranking style promotion/firing pathways.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#530

I was asked by an SME to code on a whiteboard for an interview (in 2005? I think?). I asked if I could have a computer, they said no. I asked if I would be using a whiteboard during my day-to-day. They said no. I asked why they used whiteboards, they said they were mimicking Google's best practice. That discussion went on for a good few minutes and by the end of it I was teetering on leaving because the fit wasn't go…

Are there people who still aren't aware that FAANGs developed this kind of thing to bypass H1-B regulations?
Post reply on HN