21–30 of 77 posts
I'd have to say that's my favorite thing about this process. All too often applicants go away with no idea about what exactly why they weren't a good fit. If someone gets rejected, the least you can do for them is to tell them how, so they can improve themselves.
Only something along the commitment of the 0.5-1hr "weed out" question can/should be done remotely.
If you're going to require people to do ~7 hrs of tests, that had better be at the office, pairing, with other folks (and at least give them a free breakfast/lunch/dinner!). 7 hrs while working a 40hr (or more!) week is a pretty hefty commitment, and I see no reason why that should be solely the burden of the candidate.
You should be able to trust one or two short, simple weed-out conversations (I tend to do one 30 minute "deal-breaker" discussion on non-tech stuff {make sure their and our deal-breakers are met}, then one about 1hr tech screen {fizzbuzz-sorts of things, but more diagnostic}).
After that, you should have a general sense of whether or not they are a) smart and b) can get stuff done. From there, you need to take a risk and bring them in. What is proposed is not fair to the candidate.
"unable to implement a simple linked list" "Vet the technical competency of full stack rails engineers..." because there are linked lists in ruby? rolleyes 3 hrs of backend/algo testing? rolleyes 4 hrs of frontend? rolleyes I hope they enjoyed tooting their own horn, yet another place I know to avoid bothering to interview at.
TL; DR version:
It isn't fair to throw a company out of a windows because they are serious about their hiring process. It totally depends on their company's growth need! First bullet point is extremely fair but the rest aren't and I agree on that.
Longer version: A lot of hackathon projects become startups and many of them don't require any algorithms. They can use libraries from Python and Ruby to do things they want to do. They can get away with a couple n^3 in their code and customers are okay as long as the service is stable.
And then there are startups out there building products using real algorithms that really require the knowledge of graph and sorting, dynamic programming and etc. If they need an engineer that can build on top of existing algorithms, then that's what they need.
I was a former intern at Mozilla and my interview was very simple and I really appreciate that. But what I do doesn't require me to know any sophisticated algorithm. I can survive with knowing Python and getting around with my brain. But interns on Firefox, servo and Rust probably had to face harder interviews, more tedious algorithmic types (although I heard most of those are basic too, like linked list and talk about C++).
I am also looking for new internship this winter and I fear these algorithmic interviews too, but some companies have serious need and they need people who can at least implement a linked list is important. I don't bother to read what their needs are.
I did roll my eyes when I looked at "3 hrs", "4hrs". That's a lot. But the first item: you don't even know how to write a linked list using your favorite language? Then that's the end. Linked list is not hard - you are not writing in C++ in this case.
The 7.5 hr is a different story, but I won't trash at the first point.
"unable to implement a simple linked list" "Vet the technical competency of full stack rails engineers..." because there are linked lists in ruby? rolleyes 3 hrs of backend/algo testing? rolleyes 4 hrs of frontend? rolleyes I hope they enjoyed tooting their own horn, yet another place I know to avoid bothering to interview at.
EDIT Sorry. If you can't implement linked list and think that first item is too much for an interview, HN is not the place to swing around. Keep downvoting lol. TL; DR version: It isn't fair to throw a company out of a windows because they are serious about their hiring process. It totally depends on their company's growth need! First bullet point is extremely fair but the rest aren't and I agree on that. Longer vers…
1. How long it has been since you graduated from college. The further away the less likely you will remember how to do it, because you will never do it after college.
or
2. How often you have interviewed for other positions, because that is the exception to 1.
Yes. One more non-arrogant company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The challenges are all real projects that we've already built (and thus have a baseline for). We don't agree with brainteaser interviews. Having someone build a made up project would be just as bad as a brainteaser. We wouldn't do that to a candidate.
So you believe in 8 hours * 99 applications (792 hours total - 4 months of work) of wasted time (not even your time) per hire?
"hacking" this, "hacking" that. the word is being way overused. just because you came up with a solution you think is good for you doesn't mean you 'hacked' anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT Sorry. If you can't implement linked list and think that first item is too much for an interview, HN is not the place to swing around. Keep downvoting lol. TL; DR version: It isn't fair to throw a company out of a windows because they are serious about their hiring process. It totally depends on their company's growth need! First bullet point is extremely fair but the rest aren't and I agree on that. Longer vers…
"Implementing a linked list" is essentially measuring 1 of 2 things: 1. How long it has been since you graduated from college. The further away the less likely you will remember how to do it, because you will never do it after college. or 2. How often you have interviewed for other positions, because that is the exception to 1.
If you were senior, 10+ years why would you be interview at this company? I supposed there are better positions out there for you.
Doesn't make sense with time. I didn't remember how to implement linked list after my class but I picked it up again over the summer as hobby to learn basic algorithm again.