5 ms·

I don't quite understand this point of view and the whining. Why is it that Software Engineers feel the need to whine about these technical interview questions?

I don't quite understand this point of view and the whining. Why is it that Software Engineers feel the need to whine about these technical interview questions? I don't think many of these are THAT technical either, just requires some practice. I dislike brain teasers, but I don't think Algorithms questions are out of line, even if you might not use them. I graduated with an Aerospace Engineering degree. While I don't exactly remember how to derive the Normal Mode of a wing, I wouldn't have any issue relearning it for an interview. For my first job, I was asked questions that had very little to do with my day to day but I still answered them and didn't complain.

falsedan 10y ago
> Why is it that Software Engineers feel the need to whine about these technical interview questions? Because they're pointless for the vast majority of positions: why make me learn something for the interview that I'll never use again? This offends many engineers' sense of laziness. Because it's a pithy indication about what's wrong with tech interviews: we can't ask 'are you good at delivering with weird requirements' (because the candidate says 'sure I'm the best'), and we can't check their ability to do that in 45-60 minutes. Instead, we use these shibboleth questions to see if they are like other engineers (who can deliver etc.) Because it's gatekeeping: if you didn't study algorithms or have the time/energy to keep it fresh, you can't get past these interviews and get these jobs. It doesn't matter if you'd excel if you don't have the same opportunities as the normal privileged young white male engineer. Because it's inefficient: plenty of engineers could perform well in the position but get screened out by these imprecise questions. Sure, for a startup of 4 employees, you can't settle for great and have to keep rejecting until you get the best, but for a mature stable company, you want people with solid skills and abilities who can learn (how to do algorithms) on the job.
- NikolaeVarius 10y ago
  None of that is specific to software engineers. My non software-engineering Interviews contained tons of questions that aren't completely relevant. For example, describe in detail how pressure and velocity are correlated in each turbofan stage and how they affect efficiency. Describe what isentropic flow is and how it relates to lift. I also hate getting random whiteboarding questions, but I'm not going to complain about it. If I really want a job I'm going to study for it.
  - falsedan 10y ago
    > If I really want a job I'm going to study for it. Congratulations on having the resources and stability that these interviews select for! Unfortunately, these are not requirements for doing well at the job.
- ad-hominem 10y ago
  > if you didn't study algorithms or have the time/energy to keep it fresh, you can't get past these interviews and get these jobs. It doesn't matter if you'd excel if you don't have the same opportunities as the normal privileged young white male engineer. Wow, this is completely asinine. You are implying that employers should hire anybody who could theoretically learn how to do the job well. Guess what, employers don't owe job applicants anything - least of all a job they can NOT adequately perform and require some length of time to, as you say "learn (how to do algorithms) on the job". Programming is algorithms. All programs are algorithms. If you haven't studied them, don't know them, and can't build good ones, you're not going to get a good job.
meheleventyone 10y ago
In general I think it's because forcing experienced, practicing people to learn things that are of little use day to day (and hence forgotten) is onerous to the interviewee and a false signal for the interviewer. It's akin to learning a secret handshake.

falsedan 10y ago

> Why is it that Software Engineers feel the need to whine about these technical interview questions? Because they're pointless for the vast majority of positions: why make me learn something for the interview that I'll never use again? This offends many engineers' sense of laziness. Because it's a pithy indication about what's wrong with tech interviews: we can't ask 'are you good at delivering with weird requirements' (because the candidate says 'sure I'm the best'), and we can't check their ability to do that in 45-60 minutes. Instead, we use these shibboleth questions to see if they are like other engineers (who can deliver etc.) Because it's gatekeeping: if you didn't study algorithms or have the time/energy to keep it fresh, you can't get past these interviews and get these jobs. It doesn't matter if you'd excel if you don't have the same opportunities as the normal privileged young white male engineer. Because it's inefficient: plenty of engineers could perform well in the position but get screened out by these imprecise questions. Sure, for a startup of 4 employees, you can't settle for great and have to keep rejecting until you get the best, but for a mature stable company, you want people with solid skills and abilities who can learn (how to do algorithms) on the job.

NikolaeVarius 10y ago
None of that is specific to software engineers. My non software-engineering Interviews contained tons of questions that aren't completely relevant. For example, describe in detail how pressure and velocity are correlated in each turbofan stage and how they affect efficiency. Describe what isentropic flow is and how it relates to lift. I also hate getting random whiteboarding questions, but I'm not going to complain about it. If I really want a job I'm going to study for it.
- falsedan 10y ago
  > If I really want a job I'm going to study for it. Congratulations on having the resources and stability that these interviews select for! Unfortunately, these are not requirements for doing well at the job.
ad-hominem 10y ago
> if you didn't study algorithms or have the time/energy to keep it fresh, you can't get past these interviews and get these jobs. It doesn't matter if you'd excel if you don't have the same opportunities as the normal privileged young white male engineer. Wow, this is completely asinine. You are implying that employers should hire anybody who could theoretically learn how to do the job well. Guess what, employers don't owe job applicants anything - least of all a job they can NOT adequately perform and require some length of time to, as you say "learn (how to do algorithms) on the job". Programming is algorithms. All programs are algorithms. If you haven't studied them, don't know them, and can't build good ones, you're not going to get a good job.

meheleventyone 10y ago

In general I think it's because forcing experienced, practicing people to learn things that are of little use day to day (and hence forgotten) is onerous to the interviewee and a false signal for the interviewer. It's akin to learning a secret handshake.