3 ms·

For starters, thank you for hanging out on this thread and answering questions. Where it comes to taking a realistic look at what it takes to be hired at googl

by geebee 9y ago

For starters, thank you for hanging out on this thread and answering questions. Where it comes to taking a realistic look at what it takes to be hired at google and other top tech companies, I think you give great practical advice. I've recommended your book and blog to a lot of people. Here's a summary of something I've posted elsewhere on HN, and I'd be interested in your angle. It goes, essentially, like this. Technical interviews are, for all practical purposes, difficult oral whiteboard exams. Lots of professions and academic programs involve some kind of exam Here's my objection to it - software tech interviews are essentially exams taken with little to none of the courtesies often extended to exam takers in other areas. I'm hand waiving a little here, but I do think that there is a kind of bill of rights that evolved between people who give important entrance or exit exams, and the people who take them. For example, in the world of law, you (generally) must take the LSAT, and a lot is riding on this test. However, you get to see and review old tests. You have assurances that the test will be consistent across other candidates. You get a copy of the test you have taken, which will eventually become available to the public. You eventually get to know what your score is, and why. On your way out, you take the bar exam. People study a very long time for this, and many consider it to be one of the more stressful events of their life. But again, there is information about who is grading it, what it contains, what your score is, and why. And lastly, it leads to a permanent, lasting credential respected in the industry. This is just one example, but they often come up in other areas. My opinion is that one of the reasons we have technical exam/interviews is that our industry lacks a common and respected credential and exam. I'm not necessarily arguing that there should be one, but keep in mind how stressful and how much prep these exams do take. An interview at google can take place over several days, and may involve relatively grueling technical tests, all at a whiteboard, where people worry about freezing up. You don't get to know who is testing you, what their credentials are, and whether they are doing this consistently and fairly. You aren't even allowed to discuss the questions - you're typically under a nondisclosure agreement! You don't get to know how you did - my understanding is that google has numerical scores and screen captures of what I wrote on the whiteboard, but I'm not allowed to see them or know what they are. I understand much of this is motivated by fear or lawsuits, but all we really get, after waiting, is a "we've decided not to pursue your application further at this point". And if you do pass, it's known only to that company - if you interview elsewhere, you can't take these results with you. You have to start over again. I really do think it's just too opaque, and the secrecy is just too conducive to abuse and bias. And keep in mind, this is in an industry/job category that both complains about a shortage of candidates and is not impressive where it comes to diversity in many job categories. Could the opacity and capriciousness of exams be playing a role in this? Again, I'm not against exams like the ones google does at the whiteboard, I see the value. But I think that the conditions under which we take these exams are a problem. If you're willing to offer your thoughts and take on this, I'd be interested in hearing them. Thanks!

gaylemcd 9y ago
Happy to give you my thoughts, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I do agree that lots of companies create bad interview processes -- for coding interviews and other interviews. Those issues should be addressed.
- geebee 9y ago
  I'm not really suggesting much here, more identifying a problem. I suppose my question is, what are some of those bad interview processes, especially around the coding interview, and how would you address them? To an extent, you have addressed this - in a blog post a while back, you reviewed some of the other options available to a compnay trying to hire, and none are especially compelling or necessarily preferable to a technical exam style interview. Here's the thing, I'm not just focused on clear abuses - bad question, bullying attitudes. I think even when "well administered", the customary technical exam interview itself may in fact be harming the industry pretty seriously. I think it's sufficiently onerous, intimidating, and secretive that it may be driving away talent. And I wouldn't be at all surprised that it tends to drive away people don't feel they fit the mould of the standard Silicon Valley developer at an even higher rate. I'm starting to think this is one of those tragedy of the commons situations where each individual firm is acting in its best interest by giving candidates rigorous technical interviews - but the aggregate result ends up deterring people form applying for new jobs or perhaps entering the field at all. Imagine if you had to re-take the bar exam every time you changed law firms - and the only people who would know if you passed was the firm evaluating your candidacy! In many ways, that's what we have in software. I really do think this drives a lot of potentially good people from our field. You mentioned in a blog post that taking time off to do take-home projects may deter women and others with family obligations from applying - but surely that's true as well for taking off 100 hours to study for a tech exam, especially one you might not pass (and if you don't, will never know why). People might be more willing to do this if there was a better process that ensured a fair hearing, a less secretive, more transparent approach to technical exam interviews. So, I'm asking, maybe we should step back for a moment and ask how we, as people who buy into and use technical exams, may be collectively contributing to a real malaise in our industry, one that creates a problem for everyone, but perhaps an unusually severe one for the very people we're saying we are trying to get into this field. I certainly don't think that there's an easy answer here, but perhaps our industry really does need some outside regulation, or a professional association that can administer exams in a way that is more transparent, or at least some set of standards. For instance, perhaps non-disclosures that might mask discrimination should be illegal or unenforceable? Perhaps companies and others should be obligated to share scores and reviews of candidate coding exams? I can see big problems there as well. But I really do think the situation, as it stands, is pretty bad.

by geebee 9y ago

gaylemcd 9y ago

Happy to give you my thoughts, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I do agree that lots of companies create bad interview processes -- for coding interviews and other interviews. Those issues should be addressed.

geebee 9y ago
I'm not really suggesting much here, more identifying a problem. I suppose my question is, what are some of those bad interview processes, especially around the coding interview, and how would you address them? To an extent, you have addressed this - in a blog post a while back, you reviewed some of the other options available to a compnay trying to hire, and none are especially compelling or necessarily preferable to a technical exam style interview. Here's the thing, I'm not just focused on clear abuses - bad question, bullying attitudes. I think even when "well administered", the customary technical exam interview itself may in fact be harming the industry pretty seriously. I think it's sufficiently onerous, intimidating, and secretive that it may be driving away talent. And I wouldn't be at all surprised that it tends to drive away people don't feel they fit the mould of the standard Silicon Valley developer at an even higher rate. I'm starting to think this is one of those tragedy of the commons situations where each individual firm is acting in its best interest by giving candidates rigorous technical interviews - but the aggregate result ends up deterring people form applying for new jobs or perhaps entering the field at all. Imagine if you had to re-take the bar exam every time you changed law firms - and the only people who would know if you passed was the firm evaluating your candidacy! In many ways, that's what we have in software. I really do think this drives a lot of potentially good people from our field. You mentioned in a blog post that taking time off to do take-home projects may deter women and others with family obligations from applying - but surely that's true as well for taking off 100 hours to study for a tech exam, especially one you might not pass (and if you don't, will never know why). People might be more willing to do this if there was a better process that ensured a fair hearing, a less secretive, more transparent approach to technical exam interviews. So, I'm asking, maybe we should step back for a moment and ask how we, as people who buy into and use technical exams, may be collectively contributing to a real malaise in our industry, one that creates a problem for everyone, but perhaps an unusually severe one for the very people we're saying we are trying to get into this field. I certainly don't think that there's an easy answer here, but perhaps our industry really does need some outside regulation, or a professional association that can administer exams in a way that is more transparent, or at least some set of standards. For instance, perhaps non-disclosures that might mask discrimination should be illegal or unenforceable? Perhaps companies and others should be obligated to share scores and reviews of candidate coding exams? I can see big problems there as well. But I really do think the situation, as it stands, is pretty bad.