Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 271 posts

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#261

Post by bitL »

dahart wrote: post #249
WDCDev wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite on your suggestion of a different process. Bring the candidate on site for a 4 hour coding session. Provide a standard list of questions the scale in difficulty. Think: 1) Fizzbuzz 2) Reverse a string 3) Write a calculator class/script ... 100) Write an algorithm that can search compressed text without decompressing it So you see how far and correct they can get with an IDE ... and maybe no internet connect…

I love this suggestion, and thank you for elaborating! FWIW, the interviews that I've talked about taking as a candidate actually used this approach. And, when I give interviews, I use this approach too. The only thing I'm really defending here is using a 2nd stage screening process that only takes 30 minutes, before I go to the 3rd stage that takes a half day or full day. @BitL seems to be fighting the screening pro…

> @BitL seems to be fighting the screening process, which is a necessary practicality and isn't going away.

Dunno. Google sent me flight tickets to Mountain View on-site interview without doing any phone screen. YMMV

Maybe sometimes you would consider skipping it as well? Maybe clicking through someone's resume could prompt you to skip that process? Maybe even onsite interview or making it just a friendly chat?

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#262

Post by dahart »

crdoconnor wrote: post #254
dahart wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does imply that it just doesn't prove it. @mxcl's experience doesn't imply it either. The only evidence for a widespread problem is the number of people who have that problem. I have never had an interview where I felt rejected for what I thought was a single dumb question, ever. And I've never seen it happen to someone I know personally, or at a company I've worked for. > A wanton disregard for realism in inter…

>I have never had an interview where I felt rejected for what I thought was a single dumb question, ever. This is moving the goalposts. That is not the same thing as a wanton disregard for realism. Have you been asked interview questions and set tasks which were not related to what you actually do day in day out? I have. LOTS. >I don't necessarily disagree with this, but could you elaborate more on what bad things ar…

> This is moving the goalposts.

What goalposts? You said it was an embarrassment that @mxcl didn't get hired by Google because of the "dumb" question. I've responded directly to your claims.

> What is more important than realism?

For me, questions that assess honesty, optimism, curiosity, potential, and communication skills all rank higher than technical questions that are "realistic". I care more about attitude and potential than I do about whether they can perform specific job duties already.

> There's definitely some bias there.

If there is, I wouldn't know it, but I think you're wrong. Do you know more than @mxcl tweeted? Do you know for a fact what happened? Have you heard Google's side of that story? Are you biased against Google? Do you believe one tweet is true and tells the whole story?

The fact that @mxcl tweeted with indignance about his interview experience is what implied he expected to get the job without an interview. That's a fact, not an interpretation. He didn't so much imply it as say it directly, that he shouldn't have to invert a binary tree because 90% of Google uses his software.

> I'm interested in whether they can do their job and I think it's kind of weird how people are seemingly so keen on setting tasks that test anything but that.

I don't really understand why you just got so snarky, it's probably my fault for arguing, but it was calm a couple of messages back. I'm honestly sorry if something I said ticked you off.

You're taking my comment out of context and trying to make it sound like something it's not. I can be interested in whether someone learned in school and still be interested in whether they'll do a good job, right? In fact, I'd go way out on a limb to suggest that doing well in school is a reasonable (but not perfect) proxy for how well someone might do in a job. Especially, but not limited, to new college grads.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#263

Post by palerdot »

dahart wrote: post #196
bitL wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was about accomplished people getting the same treatment as newbies or wannabes that have no clue what they are doing. You don't see it in other industries. E.g. I wrote this new language/library everybody uses, but I am forced to solve some crappy puzzles I probably was solving when I was 14 and match the current mood/skills/tunnel vision of the interviewer. As a consequence, I rather start my own company and cha…

You do know there are a lot of "accomplished" people according to their own CV who can't actually code their way out of a paper bag, right? The more senior someone gets, the more expensive. It's worth the company's time to screen for basic aptitude, especially when someone claims greater expertise. > As a consequence, I rather start my own company By all means, you should definitely do that and stop worrying about jo…

> You do know there are a lot of "accomplished" people according to their own CV who can't actually code their way out of a paper bag, right?

Are you saying, the recruiters are just treating everyone (accomplished/non-accomplished who happened to have a great CV) the same? I think your point just supports the view instead of refuting it.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#264

Post by kamaal »

WDCDev wrote: post #244
dahart wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please propose a better process! > Google wants to waive their interview process as you are an open source contributor. Other companies beg you to work for them even if you don't consider them interesting, willing to overpay you and pamper you. That's not a realistic scenario, your point seems contrived. Google doesn't waive their interview process, as the @mxcl example demonstrates. Companies only beg to throw money…

I'll bite on your suggestion of a different process. Bring the candidate on site for a 4 hour coding session. Provide a standard list of questions the scale in difficulty. Think: 1) Fizzbuzz 2) Reverse a string 3) Write a calculator class/script ... 100) Write an algorithm that can search compressed text without decompressing it So you see how far and correct they can get with an IDE ... and maybe no internet connect…

>>and maybe no internet connection.

Even the top notch devs I know can't do anything meaningful without an internet connection. Unless of course you know how to invent several layers of libraries, instantly in hours without bugs. Know the documentation of the libraries memorized to the last full stop.

In my exposure at least I know 0 devs who can do this. And I'd bet even the interviewer wouldn't be able to write any meaningful without a network connection. This isn't 1960s. By very definition almost anything today requires an internet connection.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#265

Post by kamaal »

organsnyder wrote: post #153
hnrodey wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seem to be an abundance of "openings" but a shortage of offers. At least that's if you believe the whining on boards like here, Reddit, etc.

That's been my observation. Tons of openings, but many companies lean toward denials, under the assumption that firing the wrong person is more costly than not hiring the right person. It also seems that many companies are looking for ready-to-go engineers, rather than being willing (or able) to build talent in-house. The only door open to many junior devs is the internship-to-hire funnel. This reminds me of this rec…

>>Tons of openings, but many companies lean toward denials, under the assumption that firing the wrong person is more costly than not hiring the right person.

This might be their claim, but they almost always end up hiring wrong people and firing them.

Its really simple, making hiring decisions based on an interview is really like deciding to go into a long term relationship with a person based on the make up they put up during a date.

If you are choosing on these qualities alone, then the prettiest person would get selected. This says nothing about the person at all, or worse, bad people are likely to put up more make up to hide other obvious flaws.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#266

Post by kamaal »

renegadesensei wrote: post #36

It's an interesting idea. Phrased politely I think it's fine to suggest. Still I can understand why people would refuse your approach. There's an obvious risk involved letting the applicant dictate the terms of the evaluation. The point of coding tests is that you can't prepare or easily Google an answer. The employer wants to gauge your unscripted in the moment programming knowledge. Also as someone else said, you n…

>>The point of coding tests is that you can't prepare or easily Google an answer.

Several thousands of students solve these questions on online judges. These are some of the easiest questions to Google and get answers for.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#267

Post by kamaal »

bitL wrote: post #102
Arubis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "Googlesque excellence" is passing FizzBuzz then I am severely undercompensated.

FizzBuzz is a bit of understatement, most of those tests are alike once you practice a bit and sink into trivial category; some companies actually give you way more difficult questions than what you get at Google/FB etc. and after you pass that terror then present you with an offer where you don't know if you have to laugh or cry. I haven't seen a single company doing that outside top 5 to compensate you properly for…

Indian IT services and consulting firms long realized these problems. Its just not possible to expect to hire the best and expect them to work for McDonalds burgers. So they state honestly what they want and what they can pay.

At the same to be cognizant of your business, profit margins and by that definition what you can pay and remain profitable is a good thing. Not every shop has to be a world changing venture, and if you can pay low and hire people good enough to run your business is just perfectly Ok.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#268

Post by nukeop »

hashkb wrote: post #3

No, no, no. They have the job, you want it. That email comes across so arrogant that I would expect even the newest hiring manager to laugh and delete. Without even addressing the sour grapes attitude about coding interviews, the sheer arrogance with which you try to dictate someone else's process is a red flag in the first place. That, plus the fact that you're refusing to do what they want, is really bad for your c…

Look at it in another way - they want somebody to work for them, you can provide this service. It's a business agreement, not some mercifully offered gift. Both sides want something from the other. The sooner we stop thinking about jobs in terms of servitude, the better off we'll all be as employees.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#269

Post by crdoconnor »

dahart wrote: post #262
crdoconnor wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have never had an interview where I felt rejected for what I thought was a single dumb question, ever. This is moving the goalposts. That is not the same thing as a wanton disregard for realism. Have you been asked interview questions and set tasks which were not related to what you actually do day in day out? I have. LOTS. >I don't necessarily disagree with this, but could you elaborate more on what bad things ar…

> This is moving the goalposts. What goalposts? You said it was an embarrassment that @mxcl didn't get hired by Google because of the "dumb" question. I've responded directly to your claims. > What is more important than realism? For me, questions that assess honesty, optimism, curiosity, potential, and communication skills all rank higher than technical questions that are "realistic". I care more about attitude and…

>You said it was an embarrassment that @mxcl didn't get hired by Google because of the "dumb" question.

I only said it was an embarrassment that he said that and that they asked such a patently irrelevant question and then rejected him. I think you read a lot more in to that tweet (and possibly the situation) than was actually there.

It's entirely possible that they rejected him for a perfectly reasonable reason, though there's nothing to really imply that that is so.

>For me, questions that assess honesty, optimism, curiosity, potential, and communication skills all rank higher than technical questions that are "realistic".

Ok, so if that's what you're really looking for, do your job adverts actually state at the top "we seek honest, optimistic, curious candidates with potential and communication skills?"

I've got to be honest I don't see many job adverts that state that and I think "able to do the job" ranks higher up the list of concerns for most employers than "has a sunny outlook on life". Still, if that's what you want...

Realistic tests will, if realistic, implicitly test honesty to a degree (the candidate will at some point have to admit that they don't know) and communication skills and many other important traits you might not even realize that you needed to select for - in proportion to their relevance to the role at hand.

>If there is, I wouldn't know it, but I think you're wrong. Do you know more than @mxcl tweeted? Do you know for a fact what happened?

A little, yes, but that's not the point. You don't know more than what he tweeted and yet you inferred something quite insulting that he did not say or mean.

>The fact that @mxcl tweeted with indignance about his interview experience is what implied he expected to get the job without an interview.

That's 100% your spin. To me, it implied that he was pissed at being asked irrelevant questions. A quick google can actually confirm that (there's a quora thread about him).

That's pretty much what this whole thread is about. The OP's rant was basically "recruiter, your test is bad, here's a more realistic one you should try". My rant was about irrelevant questions and unrealistic questions.

>he shouldn't have to invert a binary tree because 90% of Google uses his software.

...and neither should most people who interview at Google because asking that question is irrelevant for ~90% at software engineers even at google (never mind elsewhere).

Frankly, even if you are an engineer that does use binary trees it's a bad question to ask.

>I don't really understand why you just got so snarky

Honestly? Because, in a situation where you didn't really have enough information to form a judgment you instinctively sided with the large, powerful, faceless corporation and showed distrust of the little guy who made a great piece of software for free that people love.

I think that's a pretty unhealthy kind of bias to exhibit.

>I'm honestly sorry if something I said ticked you off.

Yeah, sorry I probably shouldn't have snarked.

Re: An employer asked me to do a HackerRank test. Here's my alternative proposal.

#270

Post by kamaal »

codingdave wrote: post #6

I think that is a great response. But you also should be prepared for them to say no, not because your proposal is bad, but because many hiring managers want to put all applicants through the same hoops, to understand better how they all compare when having to decide between 5 people who all could do the job well.

>>to understand better how they all compare when having to decide between 5 people who all could do the job well.

Seems like a nice way to hire carpenters, not programmers.

Post reply on HN