4 ms·

There's various levels of bullshit, of incremental bullshitness a) I won't believe you got your PHD legitimately, do fizzbuzz for me. b) You're faking both yo

There's various levels of bullshit, of incremental bullshitness a) I won't believe you got your PHD legitimately, do fizzbuzz for me. b) You're faking both your diploma and your 4 year experience at Megacorp, prove me wrong via fizzbuzz. c) Alright your credentials check out, do this entirely unrelated to the job assignment to prove that you have what it takes to do the job. d) Alright you aced your assignment which despite being entirely unrelated to the actual job, domain and language, convinces us you got what it takes. Now, tell me an example of when you resolved a conflict with a colleague and how you did it...

qw 9y ago
We had a surprise at my company. The candidate had a masters degree and 2 years experience in a known software company. We relied too much on the resume and mostly talked during the one hour interview. After hiring the person turned out that our new employee would have had serious issues with FizzBuzz. Maybe even looping through arrays... When we interview people know we test for basics, regardless of their resume.
- Sorreah 9y ago
  I'd consider the interviewer as much of a problem as the hire in this case. Talking to someone for an hour and not being able to figure out if they could write basic code? Hiring someone based on their background and not doing a background check (after getting their approval ofcourse)?
  - ballenf 9y ago
    At smaller companies who have trouble attracting better talent, avoiding technical questions is a (flawed) way of showing deference to the prime candidate. It's a way for the company to say, you are special to us and we respect you so much you don't have to do tricks for us. Again, it's flawed, but trying to find and attract talent at a small company who maybe can't pay top dollar makes people take risks like this. At least that's my experience!
  - mcguire 9y ago
    How do you find out if they can write basic code without asking them to write some code? If you talk about past projects, they talk about architecture and project management. If you ask about code they have written, they say it's all proprietary.
    - tkxxx7 9y ago
      Ask them to think up a way to implement a function to do X. Keep X simple, simplify further until you find common ground. Any other ways to implement? Tradeoffs? What about under this or that constraint? Ask about some peculiarities of their favorite languages. Have them describe a recent difficult bug (very insightful - in their description's wording, the scope of the bug itself, steps taken to solve, etc. - but could be 'proprietary').
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bogomipz 9y ago
Your attitude seems to be that of a bad cop - "you are guilty until proven innocent." If I were interviewing with someone that expressed the level of suspicion that you have here, I would cut the the interview short. Interviewing is a two way straight and I can't imagine working with someone with that level of skepticism. Obtaining a PHD illegitimately? Honestly you sound very jaded.
- Sorreah 9y ago
  I suggest you reread my comment and try to understand my point.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    I understood your point just fine.
    - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
      I also don't think you did
      - s73ver 9y ago
        I think they did. If the point was that easy to miss, then the author needs to rethink their point.
    - always_good 9y ago
      Spoiler: Their four scenarios are written from the pov of a hypothetical hiring manager that offends the applicant with bullshit (the "bullshit" they refer to at the start of their post) no matter the context. You think that they wrote those scenarios with their own voice, so you are misreading the point.
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        Nowhere in the OP's original comment is it clear that this is third person point of view from a "hypothetical hiring manager." Had they articulated "A hiring might think" at the beginning or even anywhere in their post then yes it would have been clear. Regardless you don't want to work for anyone - fellow team mate, hiring manager or company that harbors that level of suspicion towards candidates. It's a red flag. I did not miss the point.

qw 9y ago

We had a surprise at my company. The candidate had a masters degree and 2 years experience in a known software company. We relied too much on the resume and mostly talked during the one hour interview. After hiring the person turned out that our new employee would have had serious issues with FizzBuzz. Maybe even looping through arrays... When we interview people know we test for basics, regardless of their resume.

Sorreah 9y ago
I'd consider the interviewer as much of a problem as the hire in this case. Talking to someone for an hour and not being able to figure out if they could write basic code? Hiring someone based on their background and not doing a background check (after getting their approval ofcourse)?
- ballenf 9y ago
  At smaller companies who have trouble attracting better talent, avoiding technical questions is a (flawed) way of showing deference to the prime candidate. It's a way for the company to say, you are special to us and we respect you so much you don't have to do tricks for us. Again, it's flawed, but trying to find and attract talent at a small company who maybe can't pay top dollar makes people take risks like this. At least that's my experience!
- mcguire 9y ago
  How do you find out if they can write basic code without asking them to write some code? If you talk about past projects, they talk about architecture and project management. If you ask about code they have written, they say it's all proprietary.
  - tkxxx7 9y ago
    Ask them to think up a way to implement a function to do X. Keep X simple, simplify further until you find common ground. Any other ways to implement? Tradeoffs? What about under this or that constraint? Ask about some peculiarities of their favorite languages. Have them describe a recent difficult bug (very insightful - in their description's wording, the scope of the bug itself, steps taken to solve, etc. - but could be 'proprietary').
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bogomipz 9y ago

Your attitude seems to be that of a bad cop - "you are guilty until proven innocent." If I were interviewing with someone that expressed the level of suspicion that you have here, I would cut the the interview short. Interviewing is a two way straight and I can't imagine working with someone with that level of skepticism. Obtaining a PHD illegitimately? Honestly you sound very jaded.

Sorreah 9y ago
I suggest you reread my comment and try to understand my point.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  I understood your point just fine.
  - ruleabidinguser 9y ago
    I also don't think you did
    - s73ver 9y ago
      I think they did. If the point was that easy to miss, then the author needs to rethink their point.
  - always_good 9y ago
    Spoiler: Their four scenarios are written from the pov of a hypothetical hiring manager that offends the applicant with bullshit (the "bullshit" they refer to at the start of their post) no matter the context. You think that they wrote those scenarios with their own voice, so you are misreading the point.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      Nowhere in the OP's original comment is it clear that this is third person point of view from a "hypothetical hiring manager." Had they articulated "A hiring might think" at the beginning or even anywhere in their post then yes it would have been clear. Regardless you don't want to work for anyone - fellow team mate, hiring manager or company that harbors that level of suspicion towards candidates. It's a red flag. I did not miss the point.