Why do big companies ask unrealistic software engineering interview questions?

Post by phreeza » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 6:22 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #62

phreeza wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Small and startup companies where leadership is still involved in the interview process can gauge candidates based on their own technical intuition. So it's false to say NOBODY has a proxy for good software engineering skills. Is there any proof that this method actually works better though? I've heard plenty of stories of people in smallish (30 FTE or so) startups working alongside some really disastrous hires.

Sure. I built a team of ~35 this way and it worked out pretty well. There were very few dud hires, and of those that happened on investigation it was always because the process I put in place wasn't followed (on one occasion it wasn't followed by me!). It got noticed; we had customers telling us they had to deal with us because they couldn't match the talent we'd been able to attract. We had employees leave and come…

Post by MichaelZuo » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 7:40 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #26

sph wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a controversial, philosophical explanation why that is: Leet code is useless in the real world, everybody knows it. But one would find that people that are able to sit down and learn something useless and stupid only because their boss asked it makes for better employees. The modern corporate world does not like free thinkers, if not within easily controllable parameters. The solution for the ones that have be…

I don't think that's controversial at all - maybe only in the sense that people generally don't like hearing it, but I'm sure that anyone who has ever worked in a corporate environment knows this.

Post by drewcoo » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 8:24 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #82

jasonpeacock wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on their own technical intuition That results in biased hiring based on "I like this person, they think/talk like me". > look at the candidate's public code contributions Also biased hiring on candidates who have the time & inclination to do extra-curricular coding at the required level. > Founders have a financial incentive to not hire bad candidates All companies have financial incentives to not hire bad ca…

All hiring is biased. That's the entire point of behavioral interview questions. To make sure the applicant acts/responds similar to how the company expects/wants. And I've yet to encounter a company which hires without at least one behavioral interview component.

Post by telotortium » Tue, Jan 16, 2024, 10:32 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #48

mike_hearn wrote: post #30

If you'd like an article giving an explanation for this that doesn't require upgrading to a paid Medium subscription, try this one I wrote a few years ago: https://blog.plan99.net/in-defence-of-the-technical-intervie... It is, natch, hosted on Medium, so you will see a banner, but unlike this paywalled article it's dismissable. Just click the X to make it go away and then you can read the whole thing for free. The su…

Claims 2 and 4 don't apply to the way these algorithmic questions are usually administered at large companies, which is pure whiteboard coding where you can't run any of the code you're expected to write.

Post by valval » Wed, Jan 17, 2024, 8:52 AM UTC

4death4 wrote: post #4

valval wrote: post #2

For largely the same reasons why graduating from top schools is given more credit than any old college, even if the level of teaching is similar. Getting in takes determination, intelligence, and discipline. Same with getting good at Leetcode.

This feels like a retcon. The real reason is most likely that Google started interviewing people this way and then that's the culture that developed in the industry. Once a culture develops, it's very hard to change.