5 ms·

I recently wrote a post on designing better tech interview questions. [1] But one thing i never see interviewees do is outright ask, "Wait, what does this quest

I recently wrote a post on designing better tech interview questions. [1] But one thing i never see interviewees do is outright ask, "Wait, what does this question actually tell you about me?" I find myself asking it in nearly every interview i go to. If you ask and your interviewer gets glassy-eyed or gives you the laughably generic "it shows how well you think algorithmically" you know that you are being interviewed by someone who has little clue what they are doing. It is a great way, from your side of the table, to understand if your time is being wasted right out of the gate. 1: http://blog.benroux.me/4-steps-to-making-your-interview-suck-less/ http://blog.benroux.me/4-steps-to-making-your-interview-suck...

madelinecameron 11y ago
>But one thing i never see interviewees do is outright ask, "Wait, what does this question actually tell you about me?" That seems like a pretty quick way to end an interview. Although if they are asking dumb questions, they probably won't be a huge loss.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ktRolster 11y ago
I like your post, and I was going to comment on it, but the login process is rather onerous. So..... The first thing that jumped out was that you are trying to fit programmers into a bell curve, when they're really distributed by the power law, see: http://blog.benroux.me/4-steps-to-making-your-interview-suck-less/ http://blog.benroux.me/4-steps-to-making-your-interview-suck... That was kind of a side piece to your blog, though. Secondly I wanted to give you some ideas I've had on a similar topic, just to throw them out there: Apple has a three-step interview process that I found interesting. First they ask a question about a language (your choice in language) to see that you know at least one language well. Then they ask a question about an algorithm, then they ask a design question (how would you design a chess game? What classes would you use?) Another thing I've found is that programming skill is the low bar. It's important, but what you really want in a candidate is someone who can self-manage, who knows how to get things done. Can I assign this person a task, and they will be able to finish it on time (or let me know as soon as they realize it will be late)? So in an interview, I ask questions to figure out if the person can get the computer to do what he wants. Then I try to figure out if he's a good self-manager. Unfortunately I haven't figured out a way to determine that in an interview, but I'm still working on it :)
- ddebernardy 11y ago
  Two pretty good questions for that last bit are variations of 1) walk me through a project that you're really proud of, and 2) walk me through your biggest screw up and how it got solved. The first tells loads about how candidates view their role and how they approach working with others. The second often reveals when a candidate tends to own up to their responsibilities or dump them on someone else.
p4wnc6 11y ago
"We want to see how you think" is a hallmark of dysfunction. You cannot see how someone thinks from short interviews and coding puzzles. You just cannot. Anyone trying to is so far from doing things right that you want to run, don't walk, away from them. The only way to really see how someone thinks is to just hire them, work with them for a while, and fire them if they can't do the job. You can either pay the costs of hiring and firing (like on-boarding, benefits, administration, severance) and get useful signal about their performance, or you can spend the same money by throwing it away on useless shit like HackerRank-style trivia tests. Per applicant, the HackerRank thing seems cheaper, but you typically have to spam it across many more applicants, endure losses due to great candidates who won't agree to your bullshit hiring process, and still end up firing people sometimes when they pass the trivia but (surprise) it didn't mean they would be good at the job. So overall, it's just as expensive. You spend the money either way, might as well get useful signal out of it.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  The only way to really see how someone thinks is to just hire them, work with them for a while, and fire them if they can't do the job. That's the worst idea ever
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    It's what Netflix does, so your dismissal seems badly placed.
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      It looks like Netflix has a fairly lengthy interview process, including technical questions: https://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Netflix-Interview-Questions-E11891.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Netflix-Interview-Questi... They fire people quickly, sure, but they don't "just hire them" either.
      - p4wnc6 10y ago
        Only one or two of those interview descriptions mention anything like the bullshit tech trivia this thread is about. Most describe take-home problems, extended design conversations, and technical sessions that are more like extended conversations. You seem to infer that the phrase "just hire them" means you do absolutely zero interviewing, which was not my intention. When I said "just hire them" I meant "do some obvious stuff, like talk about their experience, ask a high-level question and expect a discussiony answer, not short, commoditized trivia, and if based on that stuff it seems reasonable, then just hire them and don't obsess over cramming more dumb trivia filters into the process." I took it for granted that everyone reading this would understand that basic interview (e.g. talk to someone, ask about their resume items, have a discussion) is always necessary. The "just hire them" part is meant to say that people should not get stuck up their own ass with trying to put together a ridiculous number of commodity filters up front before getting to that conversation stage, and that the conversation stage should function more like a rolling basis hire than like a process in which you tediously examine every candidate first, then go back and eliminate and re-interview, etc. I think the Netflix process fits what I'm saying very well.
ionforce 11y ago
> But one thing i never see interviewees do is outright ask, "Wait, what does this question actually tell you about me?" I kind of get what you're saying but it could easily be construed as openly challenging the interviewer. And I'm sure some small set of interviewers could appreciate something like that. But I'm willing to bet most people would find that to be an uncomfortable position to be in.

madelinecameron 11y ago

>But one thing i never see interviewees do is outright ask, "Wait, what does this question actually tell you about me?" That seems like a pretty quick way to end an interview. Although if they are asking dumb questions, they probably won't be a huge loss.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ktRolster 11y ago

I like your post, and I was going to comment on it, but the login process is rather onerous. So..... The first thing that jumped out was that you are trying to fit programmers into a bell curve, when they're really distributed by the power law, see: http://blog.benroux.me/4-steps-to-making-your-interview-suck-less/ http://blog.benroux.me/4-steps-to-making-your-interview-suck... That was kind of a side piece to your blog, though. Secondly I wanted to give you some ideas I've had on a similar topic, just to throw them out there: Apple has a three-step interview process that I found interesting. First they ask a question about a language (your choice in language) to see that you know at least one language well. Then they ask a question about an algorithm, then they ask a design question (how would you design a chess game? What classes would you use?) Another thing I've found is that programming skill is the low bar. It's important, but what you really want in a candidate is someone who can self-manage, who knows how to get things done. Can I assign this person a task, and they will be able to finish it on time (or let me know as soon as they realize it will be late)? So in an interview, I ask questions to figure out if the person can get the computer to do what he wants. Then I try to figure out if he's a good self-manager. Unfortunately I haven't figured out a way to determine that in an interview, but I'm still working on it :)

ddebernardy 11y ago
Two pretty good questions for that last bit are variations of 1) walk me through a project that you're really proud of, and 2) walk me through your biggest screw up and how it got solved. The first tells loads about how candidates view their role and how they approach working with others. The second often reveals when a candidate tends to own up to their responsibilities or dump them on someone else.

p4wnc6 11y ago

"We want to see how you think" is a hallmark of dysfunction. You cannot see how someone thinks from short interviews and coding puzzles. You just cannot. Anyone trying to is so far from doing things right that you want to run, don't walk, away from them. The only way to really see how someone thinks is to just hire them, work with them for a while, and fire them if they can't do the job. You can either pay the costs of hiring and firing (like on-boarding, benefits, administration, severance) and get useful signal about their performance, or you can spend the same money by throwing it away on useless shit like HackerRank-style trivia tests. Per applicant, the HackerRank thing seems cheaper, but you typically have to spam it across many more applicants, endure losses due to great candidates who won't agree to your bullshit hiring process, and still end up firing people sometimes when they pass the trivia but (surprise) it didn't mean they would be good at the job. So overall, it's just as expensive. You spend the money either way, might as well get useful signal out of it.

ktRolster 11y ago
The only way to really see how someone thinks is to just hire them, work with them for a while, and fire them if they can't do the job. That's the worst idea ever
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  It's what Netflix does, so your dismissal seems badly placed.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    It looks like Netflix has a fairly lengthy interview process, including technical questions: https://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Netflix-Interview-Questions-E11891.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Netflix-Interview-Questi... They fire people quickly, sure, but they don't "just hire them" either.
    - p4wnc6 10y ago
      Only one or two of those interview descriptions mention anything like the bullshit tech trivia this thread is about. Most describe take-home problems, extended design conversations, and technical sessions that are more like extended conversations. You seem to infer that the phrase "just hire them" means you do absolutely zero interviewing, which was not my intention. When I said "just hire them" I meant "do some obvious stuff, like talk about their experience, ask a high-level question and expect a discussiony answer, not short, commoditized trivia, and if based on that stuff it seems reasonable, then just hire them and don't obsess over cramming more dumb trivia filters into the process." I took it for granted that everyone reading this would understand that basic interview (e.g. talk to someone, ask about their resume items, have a discussion) is always necessary. The "just hire them" part is meant to say that people should not get stuck up their own ass with trying to put together a ridiculous number of commodity filters up front before getting to that conversation stage, and that the conversation stage should function more like a rolling basis hire than like a process in which you tediously examine every candidate first, then go back and eliminate and re-interview, etc. I think the Netflix process fits what I'm saying very well.

ionforce 11y ago

> But one thing i never see interviewees do is outright ask, "Wait, what does this question actually tell you about me?" I kind of get what you're saying but it could easily be construed as openly challenging the interviewer. And I'm sure some small set of interviewers could appreciate something like that. But I'm willing to bet most people would find that to be an uncomfortable position to be in.