131–140 of 242 posts
People hiring fret so much about tricking candidates into revealing certain qualities. The candidate will give you the answer they think you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've scheduled a half-hour with a candidate (or explain why longer), and you're going to sit in silence for 10 minutes just so s/he can pick a starting point for a 5 minute monolog on any topic? Given the option to talk about anything , I'd be concerned if the candidate couldn't pick something in 10 seconds . Summary of last book read, semantic difference between method calls in C++ vs Objective-C, sewing, recreati…
What would you be concerned about? Giving a spontaneous monologue to someone judging you is something many people actually find quite intimidating, even though some others may find it quite natural. It's something they teach in toastmasters or improv classes.
The point of the exercise isn't the content per se, it's the demonstration of ability to present concepts (any concept) clearly, and perhaps convincingly, on short notice.
Yes, it can be intimidating. Yes, it's an unplanned speech to a judgmental audience; such is the real world. There's a reason it's taught as a tool for success. I had to figure it out on my own. Survival and success can depend on it.
Heck, here I am taking 5 minutes, unexpectedly, trying to explain to you - a judgmental audience - regarding a random topic. If you get my point (convincing notwithstanding) then I pass the test. If a candidate can't do likewise on the topic of his choice, I can't expect as much when the topic is not.
Giving credit where it's due - this is a famous Google interview question. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230491110457644...
I'm just gonna leave this here http://throwww.com/a/1sx
o). 41 people got hired in total after being asked this question. o). 4 of those were hired despite answering it badly. o). Those 4 people did not do well. (these were hires where the manager was specifically overruled in hiring them) o). The other 37 did well. (these were hires where the manager was not overruled)
Ie. an interesting, thought provoking post, but tough to draw any definitive conclusions..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably would not get hired. Probably not. But what does that say about this particular technique? There's the ability to explain something, and there's the ability to perform under sudden pressure. I would give candidates some period of time (say, 10 minutes, if they needed that long) to select a topic first.
You've scheduled a half-hour with a candidate (or explain why longer), and you're going to sit in silence for 10 minutes just so s/he can pick a starting point for a 5 minute monolog on any topic? Given the option to talk about anything , I'd be concerned if the candidate couldn't pick something in 10 seconds . Summary of last book read, semantic difference between method calls in C++ vs Objective-C, sewing, recreati…
I'd be concerned if they could. It might suggest they are not all that interested in too many things. Or are hyper-focused on just one thing.
There are two things at work here. Picking something you are interested in, and deciding if you can actually explain it well in five minutes. Figuring out the latter would take me easily more than 10 seconds.
It's not a matter of picking something you can on about for five minutes. It's about be able to explain it to someone with no prior knowledge, and have them understand what the hell you were talking, and what's most important about it, when you are done.
Now that the article is back up, it see it has this:
Take as much time as you want to think it through, and let me know when you want to start.
So another question is, is it better to allow "as much time as you want", or set some time limit in picking the topic?
Practically speaking, if someone is still musing after an hour I think the jig is up, so there's at least some practical upper limit. But how does it influence the candidate to think there is a fixed prep time versus having unlimited time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the point. The ideal candidate presumably has a number of ideas ready to go - the question is very similar to other interview questions and you should already be preparing to talk about your hobbies and interests. The question ensures the candidate can think quickly, pick a topic they know about, and talk about it coherently. If you can't do that, you're probably not a good fit for the team. Therefore,…
> and you should already be preparing to talk about your hobbies and interests What!? How is that in the slightest bit relevant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would give candidates some period of time (say, 10 minutes, if they needed that long) to select a topic first. It appears you would not be hired because of your lack of reading comprehension. The article clearly states that you have as much time as you want to gather your thoughts and it's a bad sign if a candidate starts right away.
The article is down, is it not? Edit: NVM, the website is back up.
People late to the discussion may want to consider reading more comments before sniping at earlier posts.
The submitted site seems to be having trouble keeping up with the referrals from Hacker News, judging by its response time. (And that is amusing for a site called "refer.ly" that is all about user referrals. The site still needs upgrading to work at scale.) The question is "I want you to explain something to me. Pick any topic you want: a hobby you have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. You’ll ha…
But it would be helpful to have a line break to separate your cover letter from the FAQ itself. Something like:
---
[FAQ goes here]
Hmm, I'm not sure I like the idea of intentionally trying to steer the candidate off on a tangent. It feels like a trap. In an interview, the interviewer literally has all the power, and saying "no" or refusing to answer a question posed by the interviewer seems rather difficult. This would be doubly hard for me since I like to teach (both my parents are teachers and I love to explain things to people so that they ca…
I think the question is set up properly for the trap to be fair. Having been given clear responsibility for presenting a topic, a time limit, and the floor, I wouldn't think twice about directing the discussion.
Though I also don't perceive the balance of power in an interview to be that asymmetric, either. Usually they're courting me as much as I'm courting them. If anything, it offers a nice opportunity for a reverse test: management that has a problem with technically appropriate direction is not management I want to work for.
Job interviews are a terrible method of hiring good long term people, just a necessary evil to weed out the moronic or insane. The concentration has to be long term on how the person does on the job, the willingness to work hard to retain good people and get rid of ones who aren't working out.
People who are involuntarily committed are observed for more than an hour, because it's known that an insane person can hold it together and appear normal for longer than that period of time before they start talking to people who aren't there.
I couldn't be more sick of posts with "that one interview question" and people who think they are clairvoyant "five minute judges" of character.