Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interviewing candidates

ericlippert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Interviewing candidates

#31

Post by ericlippert »

tptacek wrote: post #28
ericlippert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are good points. The number of candidates who have told me that they want a computer rather than a whiteboard is small but not zero. I do give the same few problems over and over again, and I do take extensive notes, but I am not keeping track of a specific set of metrics that I track across candidates. I have a pretty good sense of where the "middle of the pack" candidate is. The process could be more scientif…

Do you worry that your brain is really, really good at reassuring you that you're making careful decisions? Mine is, and it makes me worry. I tried to design a process with that in mind.

Yes. There are so many possible biases when interviewing and it is hard to keep them all in mind at once. The practice of science is essentially one long story about overcoming those human tendencies to arrive at the truth.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#32

Post by reagency »

ericlippert wrote: post #26
dvt wrote: post #17

I don't really get it. This is sounds like a very pretty typical software engineer interview process. The fact that these kinds of interviews suck, don't produce good hires, and yield a ridiculous amount of false negatives has been beaten to death. Unless you're Google (or Facebook), you are not getting thousands of applications a day. You don't need to emulate their hiring process. They do it for a reason (practical…

Well, my intention was not to sound pompous, but writing is hard, you know? Thanks for your cogent critique of my tone.

I hope you are being coy, because dvt's post was obnoxious and ill-founded.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#33

Post by reagency »

ericlippert wrote: post #27
stygiansonic wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about a project seems fine to me. But the self-assessment on a scale of 1-10 just seems like a quick way out for the interviewer and can only serve to find fault with the candidate and to me, doesn't seem like it provides much information. For example, what does 10 mean? Does that mean that they have mastered the language (and all of its minute details, implementation, etc.) and would find it impossible to le…

The solution to this problem is to follow up the question with "oh, so you're an eight, great, what is something that a seven would have difficulty with?" Make them calibrate the scale for you.

Why not just give them a scale and ask them where they fit? Quizzing them about in the structure of the scale is awkward game-playing.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#34

Post by reagency »

stygiansonic wrote: post #14
EliRivers wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked by a hip, happening, popular web-app related startup to rate myself in C++. I pointed out that Bjarne Stroustrup rated himself 7 out of 10 once. I wasn't as good as him, and I wasn't nearly as good as him, which left me the field of 5 and below. I can guarantee that some ham-fisted chancer who'd flicked through the "Teach Yourself C++" chapter summaries put himself down as an 8, though.

Agreed - the answer to this question is really the result of how much one thinks one knows. Because a little knowledge can result in false confidence, those that rate highly will fall into two categories: Those that actually know, and those that don't. If the interviewer can distinguish between these two categories, then what value does the question add? If the interviewer cannot and is relying on the answer to this…

You are absolutely right, but your behavior would offend the kind of person who thought it was a good question in the first place.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#35

Post by reagency »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #16

"Second, what actually did they do on this project?" A lot of developers I know when in interviews say, "Well, the "team" did this and "we" did that. You always want to use singular personal pronouns such as, " I did this", or "The team expected me to do such and such." This is something a lot of potential hiring managers like to hear. If they have to ask what you did, many believe you're role or your work may not ha…

Yes, parsing "I/we" is a great way to filter out collaborative team players and hire antisocial narcissists.

Is that what you want, though?

Re: Interviewing candidates

#36

Post by web007 »

stygiansonic wrote: post #12
doragcoder wrote: post #7

I feel like I follow this template as well. Except, I like to add a small self assessment at the beginning of the interview. Like: Q: On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being low) how do you rate yourself on "Programming Language Du Jour"? Then I can see if their self assessment is inline with mine. Which can help in reviewing the resume. I also like to ask for them to choose a project in the past to talk about, because then…

Talking about a project seems fine to me. But the self-assessment on a scale of 1-10 just seems like a quick way out for the interviewer and can only serve to find fault with the candidate and to me, doesn't seem like it provides much information. For example, what does 10 mean? Does that mean that they have mastered the language (and all of its minute details, implementation, etc.) and would find it impossible to le…

You ask them to rank themselves on a scale from 1 to 10 to see if they know their limitations. I used to answer 10 for some things when I was young and dumb because I had no perspective of what expert-level knowledge really was. Now that I'm older (and still dumb) at least I know how much I don't know.

When they do give themselves a midrange answer N, the appropriate follow-up is "What do you know that a (N-1) doesn't?" and/or "What would does a (N+1) know that you don't?" Either of these will let you calibrate your internal rating system with their self-assessment. It will also let the candidate demonstrate their understanding of the topic in a non-adversarial way. The follow-up questions might convince them that they should change their initial ranking as well, which is also a useful calibration of their knowledge and meta-knowledge.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#37

Post by nmrm2 »

tptacek wrote: post #3

I feel like this is how everyone thinks they interview candidates, and that it doesn't really work. I wrote about this at length, specifically so I wouldn't write the same long HN comment every time this comes up. :) http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/

I'm not looking for a job, but I want to do the work-sample part of your hiring process after reading this post. Sounds like a fun time.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#38

Post by tptacek »

nmrm2 wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #3

I feel like this is how everyone thinks they interview candidates, and that it doesn't really work. I wrote about this at length, specifically so I wouldn't write the same long HN comment every time this comes up. :) http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/

I'm not looking for a job, but I want to do the work-sample part of your hiring process after reading this post. Sounds like a fun time.

Then you will like the thingy we're about to launch a lot.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#39

Post by Bartweiss »

It had never occurred to me until I read this, but I have a sudden urge to ask my interviewers simple coding questions like "reverse a linked list".

In most cases it would be a silly waste of time, but it would also have saved me from one or two truly horrific jobs with skill-free managers.

Re: Interviewing candidates

#40

Post by Bartweiss »

tptacek wrote: post #3

I feel like this is how everyone thinks they interview candidates, and that it doesn't really work. I wrote about this at length, specifically so I wouldn't write the same long HN comment every time this comes up. :) http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/

Thanks for this. Even when well-implemented, the 'standard process' for interviewing is rather unreliable and stresses the wrong skills.

Worse, it's almost never well implemented. It seems almost designed to crumble under the smallest misapplication - a badly worded question, a dry whiteboard marker, or an unsociable interviewer can destroy a candidate. None of this is conducive to good hiring.

Post reply on HN