3 ms·

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 intervie

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.

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.