11–20 of 44 posts
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination . Essentially, the system used to recruit candidates into the Imperial Chinese state bureaucracy was an-ever-more-elaborate progression of less- and less-relevant testing, and more- and more-gamable (and expensive) testing. If you thought getting quizzed about FizzBuzz was bad, imagine getting quizzed about Beowulf wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's proven that there is a big correlation between performing good during an coding interview and performing good during your day-to-day job"* *citation needed
Unfortunately it's internal. All faang companies spend a lot of time and resources on hiring to make it more fair for everybody and to get signals faster. And nobody internally enjoys doing a lot of coding interviews - it's as frustrating for the interviewer as it is for the candidate. If there would be an easier way then these companies would definitely use it. A candidate usually has 5-7 interviews (if he is not fa…
The idea that Google has internal research indicating this wouldn't be surprising to me.
Recently interviewed with one of the big ones and they were enamoured with my Swift and iOS dev knowledge but I’m not great with identifying graph questions. After many long internal discussions and even a letter of recommendation they passed/asked me if I was interested in other semi-technical roles at the company. In moments like this my sentiment is ‘take me or leave me’.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently it's still the best indicator for hiring engineers on large scale. It's proven that there is a big correlation between performing good during an coding interview and performing good during your day-to-day job. Ofc the coding interview is bad, but it's the best of all available (viable) options. tbh: most people say it's bad because interviewers focus on the optimal solution or something like that. Most of…
"It's proven that there is a big correlation between performing good during an coding interview and performing good during your day-to-day job"* *citation needed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's proven that there is a big correlation between performing good during an coding interview and performing good during your day-to-day job"* *citation needed
Unfortunately it's internal. All faang companies spend a lot of time and resources on hiring to make it more fair for everybody and to get signals faster. And nobody internally enjoys doing a lot of coding interviews - it's as frustrating for the interviewer as it is for the candidate. If there would be an easier way then these companies would definitely use it. A candidate usually has 5-7 interviews (if he is not fa…
As a candidate I would give you 3 at most. But that would require me to be in the near vicinity.
5-7 interviews? That is more than many people need to form a marriage...
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination . Essentially, the system used to recruit candidates into the Imperial Chinese state bureaucracy was an-ever-more-elaborate progression of less- and less-relevant testing, and more- and more-gamable (and expensive) testing. If you thought getting quizzed about FizzBuzz was bad, imagine getting quizzed about Beowulf wit…
I have worked who are totally passionate and read all the blogs and can talk about all new buzzwords and techniques. Who simultaneously had problem write simple code. That is incomparable to Beowulf.
It is sad to see the huge divergence between skills required for coding interviews and the skills required to be a good software developer/engineer.
I get that it's hard to determine someones skill level, and people aren't prepared to spend multiple hours on practical tests (especially when having multiple interviews), but there must be a better way to interview.
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination . Essentially, the system used to recruit candidates into the Imperial Chinese state bureaucracy was an-ever-more-elaborate progression of less- and less-relevant testing, and more- and more-gamable (and expensive) testing. If you thought getting quizzed about FizzBuzz was bad, imagine getting quizzed about Beowulf wit…
FizzBuzz is relevant to job. People complaining about izzBuzz havent had the pleasure of working with someone able to talk about development well while being unable to write simple code. Problem of FizzBUzz is that it is too easy, so folks get insulted. I have worked who are totally passionate and read all the blogs and can talk about all new buzzwords and techniques. Who simultaneously had problem write simple code.…
10 years ago I was asked how to tell if an integer is divisible by two without using division or modulus. What they expected was to bit mask the 1s place in the integer and check for equality with 0. I'd take Fizzbuzz any day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it's internal. All faang companies spend a lot of time and resources on hiring to make it more fair for everybody and to get signals faster. And nobody internally enjoys doing a lot of coding interviews - it's as frustrating for the interviewer as it is for the candidate. If there would be an easier way then these companies would definitely use it. A candidate usually has 5-7 interviews (if he is not fa…
Just for context it seems the above user works at Google based on previous comments. The idea that Google has internal research indicating this wouldn't be surprising to me.
Scare quotes used because knowing how to define success is an even more hairy question that we (industry, humans) dont have a good grasp on either. So any criteria you use might be wrong or a subset of the right (where "wrong" means you would change your conclusion if you saw the bigger picture, which none of us can.)
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination . Essentially, the system used to recruit candidates into the Imperial Chinese state bureaucracy was an-ever-more-elaborate progression of less- and less-relevant testing, and more- and more-gamable (and expensive) testing. If you thought getting quizzed about FizzBuzz was bad, imagine getting quizzed about Beowulf wit…
FizzBuzz is relevant to job. People complaining about izzBuzz havent had the pleasure of working with someone able to talk about development well while being unable to write simple code. Problem of FizzBUzz is that it is too easy, so folks get insulted. I have worked who are totally passionate and read all the blogs and can talk about all new buzzwords and techniques. Who simultaneously had problem write simple code.…
The only problem is... at some point the tech industry basically started saying to itself, "That worked pretty well! Now if we can just make our tests 50 times harder the must be... 50 times as good!"
Which explains a lot about the situation we're in now.