21–30 of 111 posts
The 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).
do you agree with this?
How do you assess developers when AI makes it possible to create software without even knowing the language?
The 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).
> The main problem is good [doctors] have no need to sit through your 12 [years of school]. It actively selects only for the most desperate or money driven people (if you pay very well). do you agree with this?
A good engineer is likely to find an equivalent job with a shorter or less bureaucratic interview process.
I don't understand why can't someone just come up with an interview where they propose an issue that is truly something that can be expected in the role, give the applicant a few hours to come up with an action plan and a solution architecture, put it down in writing, sketch some graphs, and then present it... Why is that so groundbraking? wouldn't that immediately tell you a lot about the applicant, regardless of th…
I don't understand why can't someone just come up with an interview where they propose an issue that is truly something that can be expected in the role, give the applicant a few hours to come up with an action plan and a solution architecture, put it down in writing, sketch some graphs, and then present it... Why is that so groundbraking? wouldn't that immediately tell you a lot about the applicant, regardless of th…
How well someone can solve a whiteboard challenge or brainteaser is irrelevant unless you are hiring someone to solve 10min whiteboard challenges.
Of course the difficulty is how do you assess what the candidate has honestly achieved in prior jobs - what was there personal contribution, and do they seem to have approached things in a way that suggests transferable/general skills that can be applied to the position you are hiring for.
The graphic at the beginning of the article is certainly one problem - the interviewer needs to themselves have the experience to assess the candidate. There is no point having someone with 5 years of experience interview someone with 20 years, assuming you are hiring them for that level of experience.
I think the best interviewing technique is just to go over the candidates experience, from most recent to as far back as you think is relevant, and get them to talk about each project. What was their role, what were their contributions, why did they make the decisions they did, what might they have done differently, etc. etc. Ask them to summarize and deep dive into the architecture, draw it on a whiteboard perhaps.
The 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).
This article repeats what we've long known about how technical interviews aren't great at evaluating technical skills and inadvertently filter for things that aren't important. But it doesn't offer a better way of evaluating technical skills. It talks about how to evaluate other things that do matter but aren't substitutes or proxies for technical skills. Also, this argument is some grade school smarty pants "I'm too…
Everyone has their one favorite anecdote about the one person who slipped through the cracks and singlehandedly brought their company to its knees. But I contend that people spend far more energy defending against this use case than the reality warrants.
Giving candidates feedback is good, but it has nothing to do with the likelihood or cost of a bad hire. Making timely decisions is good ceteris paribus, but it's of secondary importance compared to selecting the right candidate. Same with "effort".