4 ms·

If I had 5 minutes with my favorite editor and an easy way to run unit tests, I could have easily written a correct version of the algorithm. If you did have y

If I had 5 minutes with my favorite editor and an easy way to run unit tests, I could have easily written a correct version of the algorithm. If you did have your preferred development environment in front of you, your interview questions would likely be harder. I see two possible solutions to this problem: 1. Interviewers: Change the interview process so that candidates are expected bring their own computers to write code on. Increase the difficulty of the questions. 2. Candidates: Practice interviewing, including writing code on a whiteboard. Have a friend pretend to be the interviewer. BTW if you ever interview at Google again, I suggest reading http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-google.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-goog... . It definitely helped me. Actually, I suggest reading that before you interview anywhere.

barrkel 16y ago
The nice thing about harder questions is that you can be sure that flakes are more likely to fail at them. Bring on the hard questions, I say, so long as they are not "trick"-based.
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  Interviewers would have to spend a lot more time thinking up questions, so the cost-benefit analysis heavily discourages that. There's also the status-quo bias to deal with. I don't understand why people don't practice interviewing. It's worth your time to spend a few hours practicing something that could determine your future for years. Employers will change their interview process some day, but until then, if you want a good job you sometimes have to jump through stupid hoops. Of course, I'd like interviewers to practice as well. When I interview someone, I want to get some idea of the candidate's skills. I seriously doubt my hastily-thought-up questions are anywhere close to optimal at achieving that goal.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    usually, they've got tough problems they need solved, so thinking up tough questions isn't really necessary send your best people to startup weekend and similar events. It should take only a few hours to identify the top people and establish a rapport that may lead to a successful hire.

barrkel 16y ago

The nice thing about harder questions is that you can be sure that flakes are more likely to fail at them. Bring on the hard questions, I say, so long as they are not "trick"-based.

AngryParsley 16y ago
Interviewers would have to spend a lot more time thinking up questions, so the cost-benefit analysis heavily discourages that. There's also the status-quo bias to deal with. I don't understand why people don't practice interviewing. It's worth your time to spend a few hours practicing something that could determine your future for years. Employers will change their interview process some day, but until then, if you want a good job you sometimes have to jump through stupid hoops. Of course, I'd like interviewers to practice as well. When I interview someone, I want to get some idea of the candidate's skills. I seriously doubt my hastily-thought-up questions are anywhere close to optimal at achieving that goal.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  usually, they've got tough problems they need solved, so thinking up tough questions isn't really necessary send your best people to startup weekend and similar events. It should take only a few hours to identify the top people and establish a rapport that may lead to a successful hire.