4 ms·

It's very important to understand three things about (tech) interview process: 1. Hiring at scale is a VERY different problem from hiring slower. When we were

by soham 11y ago

It's very important to understand three things about (tech) interview process: 1. Hiring at scale is a VERY different problem from hiring slower. When we were looking for 25 engineers a quarter at Box or eBay, there were very few methods that would scale to that level. Asking data-structure/algorithms questions is one method that scales. Is it perfect? No. Is it the least evil? Yes. 2. An interview is not a test; it's a date. Interview depends on the interview-er, as much as it depends on you. You may be fully prepared, but you may still fail interviews for no fault of your own. Just the way you cannot expect to get married with everyone you date, you cannot expect to clear every interview. The more you think of it as a test, the more you will agonize about it. 3. You have to prepare Tech salaries are at peak these days. People on the other end know that. As a result, they are not going to give an easy interview. Especially true of hot companies. This is also the artifact/reason why it feels that most good companies are discriminating. [About me: I've seen this machine inside and out from all ends, many times over. I now run a bootcamp to prepare candidates for technical interviews: http://InterviewKickstart.com http://InterviewKickstart.com]

geebee 11y ago
"An interview is not a test; it's a date" I think understand where you're going with the analogy, and I think that your advice not to dwell too much on any one interview is a sound. However, I do think it's important to recognize the extent to which a technical interview really is an exam. I'm not just quibbling about terms or analogies here, I'm bringing this up because I think a lot of the problems associated with tech "interviews" are related to the fact that they are exams, but don't observe many of the practices that support the student or examinee in typical exam-based institutions. For instance, in college, an exam should be associated with a study path, students should be aware of how to prepare for it. While questions on a good exam should need not be shared in advance and may test creativity and problem solving, they shouldn't be out of the blue either, they should be related to the study path. An exam should be graded consistently and fairly, by people who are qualified to recognize a strong performance, and perhaps an approach that was not anticipated (a grader for a math exam, for instance, should be able to evaluate a proof that differs from the one a professor had in mind when he or she wrote the question). Students often have the right to receive feed back on their performance, and they often obtain a lasting credential, credit for a course, or other artifact that demonstrates that they successfully demonstrated knowledge of or competence in the subject matter. Unfortunately, I believe that tech exams are very stressful, but don't observe many of these practices that I believe exist in universities and other exam-related institutions for a good reason. The first step, I think, is to recognize tech interviews for what they are, which is a form of exam.

by soham 11y ago

geebee 11y ago

"An interview is not a test; it's a date" I think understand where you're going with the analogy, and I think that your advice not to dwell too much on any one interview is a sound. However, I do think it's important to recognize the extent to which a technical interview really is an exam. I'm not just quibbling about terms or analogies here, I'm bringing this up because I think a lot of the problems associated with tech "interviews" are related to the fact that they are exams, but don't observe many of the practices that support the student or examinee in typical exam-based institutions. For instance, in college, an exam should be associated with a study path, students should be aware of how to prepare for it. While questions on a good exam should need not be shared in advance and may test creativity and problem solving, they shouldn't be out of the blue either, they should be related to the study path. An exam should be graded consistently and fairly, by people who are qualified to recognize a strong performance, and perhaps an approach that was not anticipated (a grader for a math exam, for instance, should be able to evaluate a proof that differs from the one a professor had in mind when he or she wrote the question). Students often have the right to receive feed back on their performance, and they often obtain a lasting credential, credit for a course, or other artifact that demonstrates that they successfully demonstrated knowledge of or competence in the subject matter. Unfortunately, I believe that tech exams are very stressful, but don't observe many of these practices that I believe exist in universities and other exam-related institutions for a good reason. The first step, I think, is to recognize tech interviews for what they are, which is a form of exam.