Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
fagnerbrack.com
Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
1–10 of 111 posts
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#2> The deeper issue is tacit knowledge. Most of what a skilled engineer knows is not something they can articulate on demand.
Why is it that everyone says that soft skills can be more important than hard skills, that engineers talk to people they don’t sit in rooms turning requirements into code, but then, it seems like one of the criticisms about the interview process is “well, engineers can come up with good solutions when alone in a room”
That’s not the job. Articulating technical details when in conversation with your colleagues is.
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#3> The deeper issue is tacit knowledge. Most of what a skilled engineer knows is not something they can articulate on demand. Why is it that everyone says that soft skills can be more important than hard skills, that engineers talk to people they don’t sit in rooms turning requirements into code, but then, it seems like one of the criticisms about the interview process is “well, engineers can come up with good solutio…
eh, my take is that you’re kind of going off in a specific direction when reality is actually behind you little here.
i cannot explain why it’s not possible for us to fling the flange if i don’t understand how both the flange flanges and the fling flings.
being able to talk about it is a downstream effect of knowing about it.
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#4> The deeper issue is tacit knowledge. Most of what a skilled engineer knows is not something they can articulate on demand. Why is it that everyone says that soft skills can be more important than hard skills, that engineers talk to people they don’t sit in rooms turning requirements into code, but then, it seems like one of the criticisms about the interview process is “well, engineers can come up with good solutio…
Articulation is not the issue; the reasoning and consideration process is.
If you step back a bit from the words on that page and squint, what you might see is something like "Most of what a skilled engineer does is recognize, sense problems, and feel things that may not be obvious."
The discovery of the right path forward for the goals of the organization comes after that and takes time and planning.
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#5here's an idea for an "experienced" technical interview structure. "we care about x, y and z. you have forty five minutes to convince us that you will meaningful help us achieve our goals. we then will take 30 minutes to push on technical details as we see fit. you will be judged based on technical content, choices, taste and your overall approach and strategy for moving us forward and convincing us that you're the right person to do it. good luck!"
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#6> The deeper issue is tacit knowledge. Most of what a skilled engineer knows is not something they can articulate on demand. Why is it that everyone says that soft skills can be more important than hard skills, that engineers talk to people they don’t sit in rooms turning requirements into code, but then, it seems like one of the criticisms about the interview process is “well, engineers can come up with good solutio…
One returns in a week with a fully articulated solution, not at point blank. Famously, Archimedes came up with his in the bathtub.
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#7The main problem is good engineers have no need to sit through your 12 step process. It actively selects only for the most desperate or money driven people (if you pay very well).
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#8here's an idea for an "experienced" technical interview structure. "we care about x, y and z. you have forty five minutes to convince us that you will meaningful help us achieve our goals. we then will take 30 minutes to push on technical details as we see fit. you will be judged based on technical content, choices, taste and your overall approach and strategy for moving us forward and convincing us that you're the r…
I wonder how many great engineers with stage fright you would lose this way, though.
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#9Of course. This isn't a secret. But nobody has come up with anything better. Doesn't seem like this guy is proposing anything either.
Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers
#10here's an idea for an "experienced" technical interview structure. "we care about x, y and z. you have forty five minutes to convince us that you will meaningful help us achieve our goals. we then will take 30 minutes to push on technical details as we see fit. you will be judged based on technical content, choices, taste and your overall approach and strategy for moving us forward and convincing us that you're the r…
> we care about x, y and z. you have forty five minutes to convince us that you will meaningful help us achieve our goals. we then will take 30 minutes to push on technical details
This part is good.
> as we see fit. you will be judged based on technical content, choices, taste and your overall approach and strategy for moving us forward and convincing us that you're the right person to do it. good luck!
This part is confrontational and will lead to worse outcomes. "As we see fit" signals capriciousness. "You will be judged" signals hostility. "you're the right person" engineers conflict; there is no "the right" person, only "a good" person. And telling someone "good luck!" in this context is like telling them to try not to die while standing on a narrow plank over a pit of sharp spikes. No matter how you think you mean it, it will come across as callous to many.