How Effective are Technical Interviews?

When I was going through the hiring process, I got a list of questions that were specifically related to the kind of work I would do.

"My e-mail doesn't work, how do I fix it?"

"How would you write a script to check for number of a given event log events?"

"Write a simple SQL statement to get this data out of this table."

I was apparently the only candidate who even assumed that I was on the phone with someone whose email didn't work. That was largely what got me the job.

Now, granted, this is only an anecdotal piece of evidence about one job in the Midwest. But the larger lesson that can be applied, I think, is the same one that Jean brings out in the article.

The most effective technical interview is one that tests what the candidate will be doing. So, if you're developing Android apps, asking the candidate to develop an app is probably pretty effective. If you are looking for a software engineer, ask them to engineer. A java pop quiz has little worth.

I also do well if they give me a homework problem before the interview.

True story. Interview at Google. They had me make this AJAX web application as homework before the interview. Three people told me they LOVED my solution and thought it was beautiful. I figured I was a shoe-in for the job at that point.

But at the interview they never asked me any technical details about it. They then proceeded to ask me what happens when you add a '4'+4 in javascript. My mind kind of blanked. At which point they assumed I couldn't program :-( Even though I had created this web app they all loved.

They sent me home after one 30 minute interview even though I had to take two days off of work and fly across the country. A very dismal experience it was.

95% of people fail the programming question so I continue on the interview and get more information about why I'm going to reject them. Usually they fail every other portion of it as well.

I've done a lot of interviewing and have been interviewed myself a few times so I think I have a good amount of experience in the process. There are a lot of factors involved in technical interviews which I think a lot of people miss.

Tech interviews are usually only an hour, so the questions have to be short - this often leads to more academic questions, and questions not directly related to the work done at the company.

Interviews only tell you so much. You won't really know much about a candidate until they've been working with you for awhile. As such, many technical interviews are more about weeding out bad candidates than finding good ones.

People embellish, cheat and lie. Just because a resume is impressive doesn't mean the candidate is impressive. Just because they worked on a project doesn't mean they contributed anything worthwhile to it. Most people are honest but will still bend the truth sometimes. It's a lot harder to do that in person.

I like the idea of having a candidate work with the company for a week, but that's not realistic for a majority of cases. Not all companies are going to be able to do this, and neither are all candidates. If a candidate already has a job, asking them to take a week off is asking a lot. I also like the idea of a "homework" assignment. However it's possible for the candidate to cheat. It's also asking a lot of the candidate who may have a job and a family life.

These two approaches heavily favor college students and recent grads.

It's far from a perfect system. However it's reasonable (or so it seems) and is easy for companies to implement.