4 ms·
> I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job, but feel it is silly to have to develop an alterna
by bootsz 9y ago
> I often feel that engineers write these posts because they know that they themselves are good at their job, but feel it is silly to have to develop an alternative set of skills in order to signal that they are a good hire.
It does feel silly. But sadly it's often the way the world works. Standardized tests carry many of the same problems and benefits. Getting a perfect SAT score doesn't really speak to your level of intelligence as much as it speaks to your ability to dedicate lots of time and focused energy toward preparing for an arbitrary system of evaluation... which turns out to correlate somewhat well with being successful in school. There are few false positives but many false-negatives, just like with whiteboard-style coding interviews.
Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not.
What bothers me more than anything is that people either don't realize this distinction, or aren't honest about it. I was once rejected from a "big four" company after a whiteboarding on-site, and I was advised by the recruiter to "spend a year working somewhere with a very large codebase" and try again... As if that would contribute anything toward my ability to pass a whiteboarding interview. We all know the real way to pass whiteboarding interviews is to practice whiteboarding interview problems. A lot. I've been working as a software engineer on "very large codebases" for a while now and can confirm that I am no better prepared to pass that interview.
- rf15 9y agoI remember reading another story on HN this morning from someone who applied to the big four (well, five) and got accepted by all of them. How they did it? By optimising solely for the hiring process and little else. And, to be honest, I wouldn't hire this person - they are so focused on optimising towards the METRICS that they ignore what abstract goals the metrics are trying to measure. And that can easily come back to bite you as an employer; you can even see this behaviour if you look at what weirdness ML systems can optimise towards without the right constraints. It's a natural and easy way to do things, but it probably doesn't make good developers.
- rafiki6 9y agoI quite disagree. This to me is a rather capable individual I'd hire simply because they are a good adaptive problem solver. Problem: Stupid interviews. Solution: game the system to get what that person wants, a job.
- JamesBarney 9y agoEvery large dysfunctional project I've been on has been run by "good adaptive problem solvers" who prioritized metrics over the success of the project. Honestly all the best managers I knew who ran the most successful projects were all bad "adaptive problem solvers". Who never really played the classic game so instead focus on project success over politics.
- jbattle 9y agoIn the back of my head I wonder though - Once you hire them, will their goal be to optimize the same metrics you also care about?
- rafiki6 9y agoAs with all things in life, what you reward is generally what will be optimized for. So make sure your corporate culture doesn't reward dumb metrics.
- chrisbennet 9y agoI agree with rafiki16, the candidate "hacked" the interviewing problem - great! The stuff you bone up for a technical interview isn't going to hurt your work performance, it just an adaptive response to a broken interviewing process.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoYou wouldn’t want to hire them, but you probably would as they optimized themselves to your interviewing process. You’d have to add something to your process to weed them out, but then how could you tell? As hiring processes are all necessarily heuristics, they can all be gamed in some way. This is why referrals or at least reference checks are so important.
- caconym_ 9y ago> And, to be honest, I wouldn't hire this person So... you wouldn't hire a person who came in prepared and performed well according to your metrics and standards? Or you have no metrics or standards, and just throw the chicken bones to make a decision for each candidate? Or, I guess a third option might be that you do not tell the candidate anything about your interview process before they come in, all but guaranteeing that they cannot do any meaningful preparation? I'm having trouble seeing why a candidate working hard to prepare for an interview could be considered a negative signal, which seems to be what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means.
- whatyoucantsay 9y agoDon't hate the player. Hate the game.