Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers • Hacker News Board

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#31

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #18

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…

There are many steps so you can’t show them all (each step has sub steps and so on). You prioritize steps, but when you are showing your work you focus on steps that are key for you and think would be key for your interviewer. It isn’t crazy that you would guess wrong about the latter given you don’t really know them.

A reasonable candidate can definitely make the mistake of not showing steps that they think aren’t important (and they can also go the other way and show way too many unimportant steps).

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#32

Post by watwut » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

techblueberry wrote: post #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 solutio…

It totally is the job. What kind of unreasonable process you have that people dont have time to think?

First you think, then you think about how to say it, then you talk with others. Then you think again and maybe talk again.

But, it is not like we were designing everything in quick on the spot debates without research.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#33

Post by m_m_carvalho » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

As a former IT instructor, I've seen students who performed brilliantly in exams and interviews but struggled when faced with real-world ambiguity.

I've also seen quieter people who were average in interviews become excellent builders once they had a real problem to solve.

Interviews are useful, but the ability to ship, maintain and improve real projects should probably carry more weight.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#34

Post by tptacek » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:57 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #26

The main goal of hiring someone should be to assess how well they can do the job you are hiring for, and for anyone with job experience (i.e. not fresh out of college) the best indicator of that is what have they previously achieved (especially in more recent years). How well someone can solve a whiteboard challenge or brainteaser is irrelevant unless you are hiring someone to solve 10min whiteboard challenges. Of co…

Experience-based interviews are a fantastic way to select for candidates who have "failed up" through a long series of jobs. The underlying dynamic is that it usually takes more than a year to sever a technical employee; you can faceplant in a role and still wind up with a resume improvement.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#35

Post by bryanrasmussen » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

mathisfun123 wrote: post #17

don't you people get tired of reposting this take? don't you realize it's exactly like "attractive women reject the wrong suitors" ???

I think I find someone sexy and fun is obviously more a personal feeling on matters while I am looking for someone who will help me meet our goals for Q4 with a high degree of technical excellence seems something that should be measurable and not left up to a feeling at the moment.

So I guess I don't realize it's exactly like, I personally I feel it is significantly different.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#36

Post by pelagicAustral » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

jjmarr wrote: post #25

pelagicAustral wrote: post #20

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…

These are called take-home interviews. They exist and applicants HATE THEM for being too long/"free work".

Well, yeah I know about take-homes, I mean 2 3 hours tops. In-office.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#37

Post by jghn » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #24

pelagicAustral wrote: post #20

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…

That’s a system design interview. Those exist already and are about 45 minutes in length.

This style of panel is great.

The one thing interviewers need to stay aware of though is that they will have immense insight into the problem whereas the candidate likely has never thought through the problem space before. And this can lead to unfair judgements. I know I've fallen into this trap before, where I'd run the same session with so many candidates that I had a thorough big picture view of every possible approach. I'd see a candidate stumbling a bit and think, "Why can't they see the obvious answer in front of them?" when in fact I wouldn't have seen it on my first go either. I just had seen dozens of candidates go through the same exercise to the point where it seemed like old hat.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#38

Post by garciasn » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

andrewstuart wrote: post #16

dangus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point gets repeated a lot as if we are supposed to coddle engineers by making interviews wildly easy. At some point as an employer you do want someone who is motivated enough to take some time out of their day to prepare for an interview. Do you really want an employee who gives so little of a shit that they refuse to use their brain to get a job? This isn’t exactly a hot labor market in tech. Companies have a g…

If I think your interview process is onerous, I’ll ditch your company. I’m not interested in companies arrogant enough to think people should want to work there so much that they will endure your hoop jumping.

'Hoop-jumping' is an indication that the rest of the organization is inept at moving fast and being decision-oriented. I believe capable organizations can make good decisions on limited information and their interview process should be reflective of that.

If the interview process takes more than 3 steps and 3h, I'm out.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#39

Post by JohnMakin » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #18

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…

Someone like this may be skipping steps because to them the steps may be so obvious as to not need to be explained, and they are giving more benefit of the doubt to the interviewer than they should. your framing makes it seem like arrogance when in the vast majority of the time I’ve seen this, it’s the candidate making the assumption the person on the other side is their peer.

Re: Technical Interviews Reject the Wrong Engineers

#40

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Fri, Jun 05, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

pelagicAustral wrote: post #20

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…

That's just assessing someone's ability to design a solution, while presumably what you are hiring for is the proven ability to deliver solutions, add value to the organization over time, etc.

Of course it would be a major red flag if someone couldn't come up with a good sounding solution to something they claimed to be capable of, but a having a plan is not enough. Ideas are really a dime a dozen, and the ability to deliver is the what you really need, which is why VC's tend to fund people, not ideas.