81–90 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I quote my friend who works in "Big Data": "sometimes I think Big Data is just Excel on 128GB of RAM"
Not to go all senselessly pedantic, but doesn't Excel have a limit of like 55,000 rows?
The original article - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-huntin... Distraction free reading and without all the annoying cruft of Quartz. Fascinating use of "Big Data" to cut through the bullshit. Wonder if it will change anything. I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR.
I doubt the interviews will be less tough, they'll just be differently tough. After all, they're just changing the mechanism, not lowering the standard.
Then again, they also have some of the best Engineers. But I don't think that's a testament to a great hiring process, as that could be the result of great marketing. The "we allow you the freedom to actually do stuff and to work with the best" type marketing. From what I read/saw, the great Engineers didn't seem that happy, so maybe those marketing claims aren't really true, but perhaps things have changed since then.
They aren't using the brain teasers right. The Idea is not to create a barrier to entry, nor is it to stress the candidate. The objective of the brain teaser is having the candidates think slow enough that the interviewer can observe how he approaches a problem. It's hard, when using problems that are common, to really understand how the candidates gets to the answer. Often, he's building on pre solved sub problems h…
This has the potential to reveal a certain high level problem solving ability which the lack thereof will not necessarily be revealed by more concrete "write pseudocode for X" type of interview questions. What I mean by that is that there is a continuum of skills ranging from rote copying of solutions all the way through synthesizing solutions to business problems and designing architectures to fulfill a malleable list of requirements. A mediocre engineer can inch their way up the continuum through raw pattern matching ability (which humans excel at) without ever attaining mastery of the high level abstraction that are driving the implementation detail. Such engineers can appear tremendously productive at the ground level, but they are dangerous for an technical organization to have many of them because they tend not to see where technical debt is piling up and can often paint themselves into corners because they're not considering the bigger picture. Knowing someone has strong reasoning skills from very high level human tasks down is a good hedge against this.
Can we see the study?
Also note that performance on the job is a noisy measurement, because people who get to work on impactful projects (through luck or people skills) get rated higher than others. I wouldn't be surprised if interview scores were a better measurement of "true" skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR. from: "The trick Max Levchin used to hire the best engineers at PayPal" Levchin realized the best engineers wanted to be challenged both in their jobs and in the interview process. “We cultivated a very public culture of being incredibly hard to get in. Even though it was actually very hard to get good people to even interview, we made a point of broadc…
> "That's a challenge. I'm going to go interview there just to prove to these suckers that I'm better." Well that, or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really pretentious – it kinda depends on what university you went to. I typically say 'studied', but my friends who went to other unis say 'read'. I would take 'read' as a pretentious term.
> It's not really pretentious > I would take 'read' as a pretentious term. I'm confused...
The original article - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-huntin... Distraction free reading and without all the annoying cruft of Quartz. Fascinating use of "Big Data" to cut through the bullshit. Wonder if it will change anything. I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR.
I find the use of the term "Big Data" there bullshit. Even for the largest company like Walmart with 2 million employees - having some data about every one is hardly "big". Collect a whole deluge of data about each and you hardly fill a USB drive. I realize that reporters like to throw buzzwords into anything to cater to the "simpler" readers. But come one, this is outright silly.
But, more recently, in conversations with non-programmers, I see that 'big data' to them, means 'broad data' - it means trying to track everything possible and make sense of it. The average business user is really excited to be able to cross-relate disparate types of data - in an effort to make things better. 'Big data' enables the breaking down silos and enabling of cross references. It's about making empirical decisions based on data rather than opinion or intuition. That's really good, in my opinion.
So, 'big data' in that way is more amorphous than just the size of the data. With services and networks, the question becomes where does the data begin and end? Big data is potentially everything.
The comment about brainteasers vs structured rubrics is sort of surprising to me, given Google's reputation for quantitative data. Speaking from a very high level, structure was really what was emphasized for interviews. It's interesting how culture can get in the way of proven 'fact,' and I love that Google is using their own (much larger data sets) to make these improvements and in/validate other research
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR. from: "The trick Max Levchin used to hire the best engineers at PayPal" Levchin realized the best engineers wanted to be challenged both in their jobs and in the interview process. “We cultivated a very public culture of being incredibly hard to get in. Even though it was actually very hard to get good people to even interview, we made a point of broadc…
That does filter out the genius engineers who aren't also arrogant, doesn't it? (which might not be a problem)