3 ms·
I'm kind-of on the fence about this topic. On the one hand, algorithms is a broad subject, so there's a large hole for false-positives and false-negatives to s
by jstewartmobile 10y ago
I'm kind-of on the fence about this topic.
On the one hand, algorithms is a broad subject, so there's a large hole for false-positives and false-negatives to slip through. Sometimes it's like they'd pass on Gerry Spence as a trial attorney because he flubbed their question on tax law.
On the other hand, can't totally drop the brain-teasers because you'll need all the IQ points you can get before the corporate retardation sets in.
- hughes 10y agoDoes ability to solve brain-teasers correlate with a drop in "corporate retardation"?
- jstewartmobile 10y agoEveryone gets hit by the CR, so it probably doesn't hurt to start with a higher baseline.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- abraves10001 10y agoKind of off topic but I love relating programming to law. Both are enormous fields where no one has mastered all fields but the general populace (non-tech/legal) fails to grasp that. The interview process for engineers seems to have failed, to some extent, to understand this as well.
- jstewartmobile 10y agoDefinitely. I've had some algorithm-y interviews where I solved it in an original way, and they were ready to marry me off to their prettiest daughter. Then I've had others where I didn't even know what the hell they were asking, all requests for clarification were met with repetition of the original question, and both of us were probably wondering: "Is this guy stupid? an asshole? both?"