Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#121

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:37 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #46

mancerayder wrote: post #39

Great, now can Netflix, Google and Facebook do this, too? Not because I want to work in these places, but because they influence everyone else and as a senior engineer in the systems space I feel I shouldn't need to study days or weeks for fizzbuzz sorting algorithms questions that are designed to test comp sci recent grads. I have a proven career, and was never suddenly stumped in a project due to not being able to.…

I interviewed at Facebook and the tech part was completely sane and appropriate, the technical task was a bit fizzbuzzy but not something you'd need to spend nights digging into obscure algorithms book, but rather simple task which required some thinking, but not too much of it. No experience with Google or Netflix. As of looking at CV, I've seen people with great CVs that proved utterly useless and of course the opp…

The issue with that is that if my CV is incredibly specialized in one area that happens to match the job I’m going for (eg compilers), why test my knowledge in designing things like a distributed system and in how great I do dynamic programming (that is not useful in my area)??? It feels like there is no verification at all of what my CV claims, nor does it give me a chance to show off the skills I’ve been working on for them last 20 years, both of which are very relevant to the job. Instead, I’m tested on what I knew when I graduated with my BS, and that’s it; it’s like my PhD was a waste.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#122

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #118

jasonkester wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use the term "apply for a job", which might explain the disconnect. The post you reply to isn't about applying for jobs. You don't want to "apply" for things. You want your google VP to be having a beer with your ex-boss and worrying that his pet project was going to fail because they just can't find a guy who can really $X. But your ex boss knows a guy who absoulutely can $X, and just finished $X'ing his company…

> HR will be told to give that guy an offer and, optionally, collect a resume to keep on file. No, HR will be told to get that guy into the interview pipeline as soon as possible, so he can go through the same process everybody else does for a similar position.

The sad part is that the generic generalist interview will have nothing to do with X, and if you need someone great at X-ing, might yield painful false negatives or even worse, false positives (since you can’t hire specifically for X).

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#123

Post by chillacy » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

jasonkester wrote: post #70

jghn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you mention Google, my understanding is that you still go through the standard hiring process

Again, always? If they buy the company that you built specifically to get access to you, do you think you'll still end up getting screened out by some junior dev on a whiteboard? All policies have exceptions. Your goal is to be exceptional.

The problem is that exceptional isn’t a binary quality, exceptional at google is going to be another level than exceptional at some obscure contracting firm.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#124

Post by kronin » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #39

Great, now can Netflix, Google and Facebook do this, too? Not because I want to work in these places, but because they influence everyone else and as a senior engineer in the systems space I feel I shouldn't need to study days or weeks for fizzbuzz sorting algorithms questions that are designed to test comp sci recent grads. I have a proven career, and was never suddenly stumped in a project due to not being able to.…

I've interviewed and been interviewing for over a decade. I have had the displeasure of interviewing many people who have very impressive resumes yet when asked how they would judge their skillset in an area, and being told from them that they would say "expert", being shown exactly the opposite when it came time to answer some questions in that area.

One data point... Senior engineer that founded the local java user group and wrote a published book on the java language. Couldn't code a simple reverse string algorithm, nor explain whether, after with help devising an answer, the method was thread-safe.

Another data point... A self-described expert in SQL with it all over their resume. Couldn't write a simple join, inner outer or other.

Weed-out questions exist because our industry is flooded with people who don't know, nor care to know, their craft. And there are plenty of employers who continue to hire these people, and promote them. I interviewed numerous "architects" (with development experience all over their resume) who couldn't come up with a naive solution, let alone the optimal, to a very simple problem. Want to fix the interview process in our industry? Figure out a way to weed out the liars? I'm all for it. I would rather not have to do basic algorithm questions, but that's the current environment.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#125

Post by wyldfire » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:47 PM UTC

anotherevan wrote: post #107

b_tterc_p wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fizzbuzz is a trivial test to detect people who are basically fraudulent in their claims of programming ability. You shouldn’t need to study for it. Sorting algorithms, sure.

I remember a colleague who was affronted at being asked to do Fizzbuzz. I told him it was just a simple screen for fraudsters and bullshit artists and not to take it personally, they didn't know him from Adam, after all. http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz....

Was the affront that it was too easy? Believe it or not, it weeds out candidates.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#126

Post by oblio » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:50 PM UTC

porpoisely wrote: post #100

mancerayder wrote: post #39

Great, now can Netflix, Google and Facebook do this, too? Not because I want to work in these places, but because they influence everyone else and as a senior engineer in the systems space I feel I shouldn't need to study days or weeks for fizzbuzz sorting algorithms questions that are designed to test comp sci recent grads. I have a proven career, and was never suddenly stumped in a project due to not being able to.…

The problem is that resumes can be deceiving. If you've worked long enough in the industry, you've met a few incompetent people with stellar resumes. It's why having google on your resume opens a lot of doors. Everyone respects google's vetting/interviewing system. Also, fizzbuzz isn't anything you really need to study for (certainly not for days or weeks). It's something you should be able to work out during the int…

The Googles of this world don't fizzbuzz you, they want you to implement (close to optimal solutions!) and use tries and heaps & co. during whiteboard interviews. Neither of which I've ever had to implement in 10+ years.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#127

Post by chillacy » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:52 PM UTC

qls wrote: post #105

13of40 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a linked list interview question going around back then that went: In constant time, without allocating memory, given a pointer to the first element of a linked list, how can you tell if it eventually ends in a null or if it loops back on itself at any point? I actually ended up implementing the solution while tracking down a hang in a DCOM service I was working on...

This is a pretty standard linked list question (called cycle detection) – one of the easiest questions on LeetCode. You can use the two-pointer method to just detect if there's a cycle. If you want to find the node that the cycle starts at, you can just walk the slow pointer from the slow/fast meeting point and a pointer to the head of the list 1 step at a time until they both meet (there's a simple explanation for t…

I must admit I didn’t figure that one out till I saw the solution which was a “oh duh” moment. I don’t think i would have ever stumbled upon it without lots of hints during an interview.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#128

Post by DerpyBaby123 » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:58 PM UTC

lazyasciiart wrote: post #84

whack wrote: post #65

Here's what they are doing, from the linked blog post: > Our dev teams had taken to working with candidates to solve a bug or feature as part of the interview process. It was a collaborative effort with the candidate and the team working together to solve a real problem. Sounds like a great idea. Except it's so variable. What if you get lucky and you get a easy bug, whereas someone else gets something much harder. Le…

Even just having the interviewer pair with the candidate on random leetcode problems would be pretty revolutionary.

Why do you think so? I know many companies that pair for interviews, Thoughtworks, and Pivotal Labs for example

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#129

Post by porpoisely » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:59 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #126

porpoisely wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that resumes can be deceiving. If you've worked long enough in the industry, you've met a few incompetent people with stellar resumes. It's why having google on your resume opens a lot of doors. Everyone respects google's vetting/interviewing system. Also, fizzbuzz isn't anything you really need to study for (certainly not for days or weeks). It's something you should be able to work out during the int…

The Googles of this world don't fizzbuzz you, they want you to implement (close to optimal solutions!) and use tries and heaps & co. during whiteboard interviews. Neither of which I've ever had to implement in 10+ years.

I didn't say the googles of the world fizzbuzz you. I just said that fizzbuzz is so basic and simple that a developer shouldn't be studying for days or weeks for fizzbuzz. I said people respect google on your resume because their interviewing process is robust.

Re: Microsoft changed how it interviews software developers

#130

Post by anotherevan » Sun, Dec 30, 2018, 10:59 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #125

anotherevan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a colleague who was affronted at being asked to do Fizzbuzz. I told him it was just a simple screen for fraudsters and bullshit artists and not to take it personally, they didn't know him from Adam, after all. http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz....

Was the affront that it was too easy? Believe it or not, it weeds out candidates.

I think, because he didn't understand the purpose, he saw it as poor company interviewing to make him jump though that sort of crap. Once he understood it was just a simple screening mechanism because of the high number of dodgy applicants, he calmed down.