21–30 of 83 posts
I always "prepare" for interviews, I learn about the company, what they do, their stack if it's public, etc. I don't bone up on my knowledge of programming or how to implement an N(x) sort or anything like that. If I don't know it then I don't know it and cramming to try and show off that yes I listened in my CS classes back in college seem disingenuous and misleading. I will succeed or fail on my own merits and I wi…
I feel like this is the least true statement in the article. A candidate should have the willingness and ability to learn the skills required to perform the job duties, and improve those skills over time. They should have some basic building block skills required in advance, like understanding how code languages work, and how to learn them, or how to communicate with teammates and get difficult questions answered. But experience is probably not what they need, unless only experience can build a specific skill (i.e. product/market vision based on intimate domain knowledge.)
Good piece, but misleading title. There is a big difference between "cramming" and preparing. Like the author says: "Preparing by learning about a company and its product makes sense. But preparing for an interview by cramming/studying material that is supposedly needed for the job makes no sense." When I get a candidate who has no sense of the job they are applying for and is not able to ask meaningful questions, it…
The issue is that companies like Google EXPECT you to cram on algorithms before the interview. They will even give you a study guide! Being really good at programming on a whiteboard is the name of the game. And studying for this is absolutely useful, and not "cheating" because everyone does it and is expected to do it.
I don't see how this process is useful to the candidate. I mean it is useful if he is actually hired but is there any other usefulness beyond this? Does it improve your skill? Makes you a better person? Is it fun? I don't think so.
Also refer to my other comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that companies like Google EXPECT you to cram on algorithms before the interview. They will even give you a study guide! Being really good at programming on a whiteboard is the name of the game. And studying for this is absolutely useful, and not "cheating" because everyone does it and is expected to do it.
How does one become really good at programming on a whiteboard? Should you rent a conference room and hire a couple of people to play the part of the interviewers and just practice?
They've got the most common algorithm questions asked at the various Big Tech companies.
Go through them, and learn to solve/implemented at least 250 of their problems, and you'll be able to able to breeze through most algo interviews.
I always "prepare" for interviews, I learn about the company, what they do, their stack if it's public, etc. I don't bone up on my knowledge of programming or how to implement an N(x) sort or anything like that. If I don't know it then I don't know it and cramming to try and show off that yes I listened in my CS classes back in college seem disingenuous and misleading. I will succeed or fail on my own merits and I wi…
Not practical for a guy who depends on salary.
Good article, but I disagree. When interviewers ask you all sorts of minutiae that are outside of your experience and also not at all required for your job, and when those companies have extremely lucrative compensation and benefits package with "dream" work cultures (for most), not preparing for that interview puts you at a disadvantage for someone who has. If you're trying for stretch roles that your experience doe…
Of course, you're probably not qualified for the position. Thus it's normal to have troubles in the interview.
This sort of transition used to be done by joining a "junior" position and getting trained on the job, without having to pretend to be a wizard.
Unfortunately it's hard to accept for one's ego that he has to continue as a not senior when changing fields, and it probably makes no sense on a financial perspective since an experienced ruby dev might earn more in his niche.
Nothing any of us can do about it. It would mean avoiding all mid size/larger tech companies. I am looking for a change, and I am preparing heavily. Algos, data structures, design stuff.
>Granted, all of this implies that companies have actually created an interview that actually tests the skills needed for the position they are hiring for.
I think he meant "assumes" not implies, but this is the crux. They test what they test, and if it possible to game it, people will do so.
> A candidate should have the experience to do the job well. I feel like this is the least true statement in the article. A candidate should have the willingness and ability to learn the skills required to perform the job duties, and improve those skills over time. They should have some basic building block skills required in advance, like understanding how code languages work, and how to learn them, or how to commun…
Usually people prepare for job interviews by cramming sorting algorithms, balanced trees, answers to questions like "why are manhole covers round?", and similar things unrelated to job.
Good piece, but misleading title. There is a big difference between "cramming" and preparing. Like the author says: "Preparing by learning about a company and its product makes sense. But preparing for an interview by cramming/studying material that is supposedly needed for the job makes no sense." When I get a candidate who has no sense of the job they are applying for and is not able to ask meaningful questions, it…
The issue is that companies like Google EXPECT you to cram on algorithms before the interview. They will even give you a study guide! Being really good at programming on a whiteboard is the name of the game. And studying for this is absolutely useful, and not "cheating" because everyone does it and is expected to do it.
The other day, I read a rant about an algorithms interview question at some big company (it might have been Google, but I'm not sure and it doesn't matter). Essentially the rant was that the candidate had been asked to implement an obscure version of some widely known and well described function that has O(n) time where all the standard and widely studied and likely to be crammed versions have O(n log n) time -- more or less the question was based on an algorithm of the sort that probably appears in a research journal or conference proceedings and no where else. Essentially, the question was uncrammable.
That's what makes it a great interview question. It identifies true genius when the candidate can figure it out on the fly. It identifies ordinary engineering talent when the candidate starts with what they know [an O(n log n) solution] and reasons from there (and perhaps asks for help!] and it identifies people candidates who are applying at Google because it is Google and not because they enjoy challenging problems.