3 ms·
Your first point suggests these questions have some value for you in identifying people's skills. Fair enough. Your second argument admits that this is basical
by inimino 10y ago
Your first point suggests these questions have some value for you in identifying people's skills. Fair enough.
Your second argument admits that this is basically a hazing ritual. Of course you will have to learn some things you don't intrinsically care about in the course of your work. The difference is, that isn't part of a process that we intentionally designed to be that way. Admitting that your hiring process requires useless knowledge that people just have to learn to get through the process means you admit your process doesn't measure what matters and is just a hazing ritual. You're putting up hoops just to see who will jump through them.
- avasylev 10y agoYou can't make conclusion just from second argument alone. It's not hazing ritual because my first point. But I also think knowing them is useful, but I see a lot of people arguing it not needed at all. So what I tried to say in second, that regardless of what one thinks on usefulness of Algo knowledge,there's no excuse to ignore algorithm and expect to pass interviews.
- inimino 10y agoIf you think it's not necessary for the job but it's necessary for the interview, then at least we can agree the interview process isn't so great. Of course, knowing how to play the system is part of getting a job, but we can still point out that the system is broken. After all, these are systems we set up ourselves.
- avasylev 10y agoAgree process isn't great, if I knew better practical approach I'd use it instead.