4 ms·

> On a higher level - how much of an "already seen the algorithm" crapshot are tech interviews? I'd say it is mostly that. Just do thirty to fifty leetcode me

> On a higher level - how much of an "already seen the algorithm" crapshot are tech interviews? I'd say it is mostly that. Just do thirty to fifty leetcode medium problems (some of them on pen and paper), and you're good to go.

gaylemcd 9y ago
That is really, really not true. An unintelligent engineer will never be able to practice enough to do well on a well-conducted interview at Google. (They could in rare cases do well if all their interviewers pick common problem.)
- logicallee 9y ago
  If it's really, really not true then why do you write >will never be able to practice enough to do well on a well-conducted interview Or in other words a true scotsman interview. It sounds like you can't bring yourself to write "on an average interview at Google" because you wish they wouldn't pick common interview problems - but they do. Based on what you just wrote, I'd certainly work through books of "interview questions". Because your phrasing just proved it works, even though ideologically that is not what candidates "should" do.
  - gaylemcd 9y ago
    No. "On an average interview at google" is not really the same thing. It's not getting at the same point. Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then that interview process is broken. If you have a company with a bad implementation of whiteboard coding interviews (for example, who just pull questions out of Cracking the Coding Interview), then it's absolutely true that a bad candidate could pass this process. This doesn't mean that whiteboard interviews are broken. It means that this company's implementation of whiteboard interviews is broken. There is a difference. For Google specifically, their implementation is decent, but not ideal. A bad candidate would have low odds of passing an average interview at Google, but those odds are not as low as I'd like.
    - logicallee 9y ago
      uh, you're willfully ignoring that we don't care about the company's side of things. In this thread where someone wrote: >> On a higher level - how much of an "already seen the algorithm" crapshot are tech interviews? >I'd say it is mostly that. Just do thirty to fifty leetcode medium problems (some of them on pen and paper), and you're good to go. Nobody in this thread cares if the reason this advice actually (in actual practice) often works is that the interview process is broken. nobody cares if the reason we get the job is because we exploited a flaw, and we "shouldn't have" done it that way. Basically, where you just wrote, >Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then that interview process is broken. you should have written: >Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then I have to admit, if you strictly want to increase your chances of getting a job, then you can do so by preparing -- but I grit my teeth while saying that, because that interview process is broken. that would have been honest and matches the reason others had for the above thread! anyway, thanks for the responses.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- geebee 9y ago
  This question may be a bit too late, but I am curious. I didn't get through at Google. However, I only asked for 3 weeks to prepare, and I have outside obligations (kids, coaching, that sort of thing). I can easily traverse a binary tree, print all permutations of a set, do DFS and BFS. But I'm not super sharp, especially at a whiteboard. My review was "not bad, good analysis, but didn't make enough coding progress". Maybe they were being nice. As I said in another comment, I'm not allowed to know what my scores or reviews were. FTR, I was a math major, though I did take basic CS algorithms and data structures. So I have a background, but probably further to go than a typical CS major. I know it will vary by individual, but how many hours, over what period of time, would you say counts as "enough practice" where you might start considering that you probably aren't going to be able to practice enough to do this. Could you ballpark it? I'd prefer to avoid "unintelligent", but you know, a point at which you'd say, this probably isn't for you, might be time to get some new goals?
  - wayn3 9y ago
    a math degree with some CS is a way better background to have than being a CS major.
UncleMeat 9y ago
I really hope its not. I don't expect any of the people I interview to have ever seen my question or even the particular algorithmic solution before. Good candidates should be able to come up with efficient algorithms to transform and manipulate common data structures on the spot.
- wayn3 9y ago
  Do you believe that the solutions to "solve a sudoku" and "solve n queens" are significantly different?

gaylemcd 9y ago

That is really, really not true. An unintelligent engineer will never be able to practice enough to do well on a well-conducted interview at Google. (They could in rare cases do well if all their interviewers pick common problem.)

logicallee 9y ago
If it's really, really not true then why do you write >will never be able to practice enough to do well on a well-conducted interview Or in other words a true scotsman interview. It sounds like you can't bring yourself to write "on an average interview at Google" because you wish they wouldn't pick common interview problems - but they do. Based on what you just wrote, I'd certainly work through books of "interview questions". Because your phrasing just proved it works, even though ideologically that is not what candidates "should" do.
- gaylemcd 9y ago
  No. "On an average interview at google" is not really the same thing. It's not getting at the same point. Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then that interview process is broken. If you have a company with a bad implementation of whiteboard coding interviews (for example, who just pull questions out of Cracking the Coding Interview), then it's absolutely true that a bad candidate could pass this process. This doesn't mean that whiteboard interviews are broken. It means that this company's implementation of whiteboard interviews is broken. There is a difference. For Google specifically, their implementation is decent, but not ideal. A bad candidate would have low odds of passing an average interview at Google, but those odds are not as low as I'd like.
  - logicallee 9y ago
    uh, you're willfully ignoring that we don't care about the company's side of things. In this thread where someone wrote: >> On a higher level - how much of an "already seen the algorithm" crapshot are tech interviews? >I'd say it is mostly that. Just do thirty to fifty leetcode medium problems (some of them on pen and paper), and you're good to go. Nobody in this thread cares if the reason this advice actually (in actual practice) often works is that the interview process is broken. nobody cares if the reason we get the job is because we exploited a flaw, and we "shouldn't have" done it that way. Basically, where you just wrote, >Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then that interview process is broken. you should have written: >Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then I have to admit, if you strictly want to increase your chances of getting a job, then you can do so by preparing -- but I grit my teeth while saying that, because that interview process is broken. that would have been honest and matches the reason others had for the above thread! anyway, thanks for the responses.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
geebee 9y ago
This question may be a bit too late, but I am curious. I didn't get through at Google. However, I only asked for 3 weeks to prepare, and I have outside obligations (kids, coaching, that sort of thing). I can easily traverse a binary tree, print all permutations of a set, do DFS and BFS. But I'm not super sharp, especially at a whiteboard. My review was "not bad, good analysis, but didn't make enough coding progress". Maybe they were being nice. As I said in another comment, I'm not allowed to know what my scores or reviews were. FTR, I was a math major, though I did take basic CS algorithms and data structures. So I have a background, but probably further to go than a typical CS major. I know it will vary by individual, but how many hours, over what period of time, would you say counts as "enough practice" where you might start considering that you probably aren't going to be able to practice enough to do this. Could you ballpark it? I'd prefer to avoid "unintelligent", but you know, a point at which you'd say, this probably isn't for you, might be time to get some new goals?
- wayn3 9y ago
  a math degree with some CS is a way better background to have than being a CS major.

UncleMeat 9y ago

I really hope its not. I don't expect any of the people I interview to have ever seen my question or even the particular algorithmic solution before. Good candidates should be able to come up with efficient algorithms to transform and manipulate common data structures on the spot.

wayn3 9y ago
Do you believe that the solutions to "solve a sudoku" and "solve n queens" are significantly different?