3 ms·

"I’ve interviewed people with a good deal of experience in industry, with degrees from prestigious universities, who have founded startups or done any number of

by mds 16y ago

"I’ve interviewed people with a good deal of experience in industry, with degrees from prestigious universities, who have founded startups or done any number of impressive things, who just melt down when asked to write a simple piece of code." Doesn't this just show that the ability to write code in an interview situation is a poor predictor of future performance?

waterlesscloud 16y ago
Exactly. When the evidence clashes with your theory, your theory is wrong. If people who have actually produced vital code aren't passing your interview test, your interview test is poorly conceived.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  He mentions some of these candidates get hired and wash out. That seems like a pretty good correlation.
  - hga 16y ago
    Indeed. The issue here is "How easily can you afford a dud hire?" Too many people out there with great resumes can't program their way out of a paper bag. The whiteboard test may be unfair to those who melt under interview pressure, but if the greatest danger is false positives for the "can they code?" test---if it's a startup where the price of one bad hire is very possibly if not likely the failure of the entire venture---it's the best test we've got. Note that the test doesn't have to be "tricky" or anything like that, e.g. a simple "reverse a doubly linked list" will weed out a surprising number of candidates. My three basic tests, back when C/C++ were the only choices to use, were that one (tests groking pointers), do a recursive factorial (any language will do for that), and "find the errors in this block of code". Mistakes in doing any of the above are perfectly fine, what you're looking for first and foremost is "do they have a clue?" Or use another higher level test from one of the best managers I ever had: if you have any doubt about the candidate, don't hire them. And if you doubt they can really code....

by mds 16y ago

waterlesscloud 16y ago

Exactly. When the evidence clashes with your theory, your theory is wrong. If people who have actually produced vital code aren't passing your interview test, your interview test is poorly conceived.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
He mentions some of these candidates get hired and wash out. That seems like a pretty good correlation.
- hga 16y ago
  Indeed. The issue here is "How easily can you afford a dud hire?" Too many people out there with great resumes can't program their way out of a paper bag. The whiteboard test may be unfair to those who melt under interview pressure, but if the greatest danger is false positives for the "can they code?" test---if it's a startup where the price of one bad hire is very possibly if not likely the failure of the entire venture---it's the best test we've got. Note that the test doesn't have to be "tricky" or anything like that, e.g. a simple "reverse a doubly linked list" will weed out a surprising number of candidates. My three basic tests, back when C/C++ were the only choices to use, were that one (tests groking pointers), do a recursive factorial (any language will do for that), and "find the errors in this block of code". Mistakes in doing any of the above are perfectly fine, what you're looking for first and foremost is "do they have a clue?" Or use another higher level test from one of the best managers I ever had: if you have any doubt about the candidate, don't hire them. And if you doubt they can really code....