4 ms·
Being a mid-40's dev, here's my view... It's as much a test to see if you'd like to work for that company as it is a fizzbuzz. You know going in what the proc
by jpollock 11y ago
Being a mid-40's dev, here's my view... It's as much a test to see if you'd like to work for that company as it is a fizzbuzz.
You know going in what the process is, are you willing to prepare for it? Are you willing to expend the effort to open the text books, read papers, and arrange your day job to get the practice in?
I've found that the interview prep I had to do was a good indicator of what the job was going to be. So, if you're not willing to do the prep, then perhaps the job isn't for you.
Sitting on the other side of the table, the number of people who aren't able to accomplish a fizzbuzz type question is high. I also get more than just "can they code?" out of it.
I check:
1) for sound engineering practices (test data!)
2) ability to communicate their process.
3) willingness to ask questions when they don't understand.
4) ability to take feedback.
5) ability to work under time pressure.
The technical part is only the first bit. It's a bit hurdle, but it isn't the only one.
- mtberatwork 11y agoHow much accurate data on a person can you reasonably get by putting them "under the gun" on a whiteboard? How are you filtering out those whose knowledge ends at the prep work they simply memorized beforehand? I find it more worthwhile to have real, in-depth conversations about code, software, infrastructure, etc. and walk through a few prior projects/code they can bring in and have to show. I find this far more insightful than barraging them with trivial coding exercises like fizzbuzz.
- jpollock 11y agoYou can't, any more than you can get accurate data about a person by talking to them. They both select for different groups. I understand that the research shows that the only truly accurate measure is working with someone for a week or two.