6 ms·

> I often find it’s not enough to just be able to solve the question; you really need to vocalize your thought process. I interview candidates regularly, and

> I often find it’s not enough to just be able to solve the question; you really need to vocalize your thought process. I interview candidates regularly, and I can't overstate how important this is. If I ask you a hard interview question, and you sit silently for 10 minutes and then write out a perfect solution on the board without any discussion of how you got there, all I've learned is that you knew the answer. I have very little evidence for why I should hire you. Talking through your problem solving out loud does not come naturally to a lot of people, but it's an important skill to master for interviewing (as well as for working through real problems in small groups).

mattm 9y ago
Does it really matter though? What if I solve problems by eating a piece of toast? There's really no way you can understand how someone else thinks in an hour. All you're really going to look for is "Does this person think the same way that I do?"
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  It matters a lot! If I could reduce your toast-based problem solving technique to something we could implement on silicon and gluten, imagine the applications! Also yes, hearing you reason also matters a lot. I need to see how you refine my lousy problem statement into a solvable problem. Do you make a lot of assumptions about the problem without noticing? Can you consider alternatives or do you get completely stuck on the first solution you encounter? Can you explain a technical idea to someone reasonably clearly and concisely? I don't need you to be like me, but if we can't brainstorm together about technical problems, we're going to have trouble working together as a team.
- virgilp 9y ago
  I concur - it does matter. I'm not looking for "thinks the same way that I do" - I'm looking for "thinks". And specifically, how. I want to see you evaluate & discard ideas. I want to know that you quickly identified the "brute force"solution and discarded it, rather than sitting there for 10 minutes, not knowing how to even start. You must realize, if the problem is hard, I don't even expect you to solve it. You're suspicious if you do. I don't have half an hour to sit on a single problem - that's not the purpose of the interview.
  - twelve40 9y ago
    and that's what makes it ridiculous. In my whole career I have not been forced to vocalize hard problems on a whiteboard in one hour, getting judged for how good of a dog and pony show I put on with "evaluating and discarding ideas" on the fly, out loud, in an interrogation setup. This is so artificial. Not even close to how real teams work. My best ideas start to really form after thinking about a hard problem for days, including in off hours, background mode. Often I have to talk to many people, including non-programmers, to cover all angles of a hard problem. These "hard interview problems" that must be solved through some artificially staged contemplation really are useful for two reasons: * it's sadly the only way to quickly try to get a random reading of a person in a semi-standardized way while minimizing time commitment, kind of like fast food is the quickest way to fill oneself, and * people who pass these at least demonstrate that they can drill/memorize or otherwise prepare for a challenging activity, which takes time and discipline, which in general are desirable characteristics that's it, pretending like this in any way models real work or has any other benefits is not right.
    - virgilp 9y ago
      > This is so artificial. Right. It's an interview - artificial by definition, not meant to be perfect; in fact perfection in hiring (or in anything) is unachievable - we aim for the "good enough". > Often I have to talk to many people, including non-programmers, to cover all angles of a hard problem. Here we are - me and my colleague - there to answer questions, reflect on your thoughts, etc. Talk to us, that's exactly what I expect. Not just to give solutions, but to clarify the problem (for you and for us). Make us understand how you're looking at it - we'll also share our perspective and see if we can come up with something together. Is this really something that you don't see happening, in practice?
    - Double_a_92 9y ago
      That's why I think that interview challenges should be "easy". E.g. something like "Make a number guessing game." 1. It's easy enough so you can talk and explain while solving it. 2. It can show your ability to split problems into smaller subproblems. 3. It maybe filters people that just memorize a bunch of solutions, since it's open how exactly you solve it.
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
Problem solving is pattern matching/recognition. Many of us solve problems wordlessly in our head with no explainable "thought process". After solving it, i can explain quite clearly but not during. One does NOT need to be able to simultaneously solve & explain how you solve an abstract algorithm problem to be a good engineer either. Dont kid yourself its only an "important skill" because you like to test for it.
- mplewis 9y ago
  Part of hiring is finding out if someone can work well with a team. Lots of teams need everyone to be able to communicate well during collaborative problem solving sessions. I've worked with the strong, silent type of coworker who has a solution in their head. But because they don't vocalize what they're thinking, I can't participate or help. That's not what I'm looking for in a good engineer and a good coworker.
  - flamedoge 9y ago
    strong and silent is fine, as long as they are on the same page as you and you as them. It might take magic to do that. Communicating effectively is an important thing to avoid wasting time in red herrings.
  - Scarblac 9y ago
    It depends on who you already have in your team. Having a few members who can solve hard problems on their own is great, and they usually have to be silent and focused while doing it. You also need people who are good at participating and helping and explaining their thought process. A team that has only one type isn't going to be the most effective team.
  - Juliate 9y ago
    It's not "good" versus "bad" engineer/coworker. It's a different way of functioning. Some people (I'd guess introverts, although I'm not sure) need to internalize to think and can't interact much at this point. Some can think and discuss at the same time. From these two sets of people, some can afterward verbally explain the reasoning and the solution, some can't. Some may also only require a context warm-up. That makes 4 sets of people already. "Technical" phone interviews that screen candidates that can solve whatever riddle, filter for a very specific set of people. Not necessarily the best in any context. But a specific set that works for them. Just admit/accept it.
ubernostrum 9y ago
On the other hand, if you're cargo-culting interview practices from third-hand accounts of what BigCo tech companies do, you've demonstrated that you're probably not someone I want to work for. So it evens out!
- ycombobreaker 9y ago
  You are the one making an assumption that the GP is parroting BigCo tech company interviews.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Their comment referred to a hard problem with a solution written on the "board". Smells like cargo-culting of BigCo whiteboard interviews to me.
kosma 9y ago
There are other thinking styles beside verbal. You're basically throwing out a large portion of candidates, including very talented ones (as having visual/logical thinking style comes with its own perks, sometimes very valuable).
varjag 9y ago
Ugh, so coming up with a perfect solution to a riddle isn't enough in an interview now apparently. You guys just can't be pleased :) Perhaps you can simply ask how they arrived to their solution, you owe them at least that. Or be upfront that they should reason aloud.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Steve-_-Jobs 9y ago
If I speak anything while solving the problem, this will distract me greatly from actually solving it and also embarass me a lot because I usually immediately recognize that an attempt of solution I'm thinking about is not right, so I don't want to sound like an idiot speaking about stupid solutions which don't work.
Double_a_92 9y ago
If the problem is too hard it's not always possible to talk or draw something while thinking about it. You go through dozens of possible solutions in your head, to find a good one. That's like asking a champion chessplayer to explain what he's thinking about while trying to make a move. So this only works if the candidate already knows the solution, and knows which way is right and just explains that one (and maybe a few bad alternatives on purpose). Or if the problem is relatively easy.

mattm 9y ago

Does it really matter though? What if I solve problems by eating a piece of toast? There's really no way you can understand how someone else thinks in an hour. All you're really going to look for is "Does this person think the same way that I do?"

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
It matters a lot! If I could reduce your toast-based problem solving technique to something we could implement on silicon and gluten, imagine the applications! Also yes, hearing you reason also matters a lot. I need to see how you refine my lousy problem statement into a solvable problem. Do you make a lot of assumptions about the problem without noticing? Can you consider alternatives or do you get completely stuck on the first solution you encounter? Can you explain a technical idea to someone reasonably clearly and concisely? I don't need you to be like me, but if we can't brainstorm together about technical problems, we're going to have trouble working together as a team.
virgilp 9y ago
I concur - it does matter. I'm not looking for "thinks the same way that I do" - I'm looking for "thinks". And specifically, how. I want to see you evaluate & discard ideas. I want to know that you quickly identified the "brute force"solution and discarded it, rather than sitting there for 10 minutes, not knowing how to even start. You must realize, if the problem is hard, I don't even expect you to solve it. You're suspicious if you do. I don't have half an hour to sit on a single problem - that's not the purpose of the interview.
- twelve40 9y ago
  and that's what makes it ridiculous. In my whole career I have not been forced to vocalize hard problems on a whiteboard in one hour, getting judged for how good of a dog and pony show I put on with "evaluating and discarding ideas" on the fly, out loud, in an interrogation setup. This is so artificial. Not even close to how real teams work. My best ideas start to really form after thinking about a hard problem for days, including in off hours, background mode. Often I have to talk to many people, including non-programmers, to cover all angles of a hard problem. These "hard interview problems" that must be solved through some artificially staged contemplation really are useful for two reasons: * it's sadly the only way to quickly try to get a random reading of a person in a semi-standardized way while minimizing time commitment, kind of like fast food is the quickest way to fill oneself, and * people who pass these at least demonstrate that they can drill/memorize or otherwise prepare for a challenging activity, which takes time and discipline, which in general are desirable characteristics that's it, pretending like this in any way models real work or has any other benefits is not right.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    > This is so artificial. Right. It's an interview - artificial by definition, not meant to be perfect; in fact perfection in hiring (or in anything) is unachievable - we aim for the "good enough". > Often I have to talk to many people, including non-programmers, to cover all angles of a hard problem. Here we are - me and my colleague - there to answer questions, reflect on your thoughts, etc. Talk to us, that's exactly what I expect. Not just to give solutions, but to clarify the problem (for you and for us). Make us understand how you're looking at it - we'll also share our perspective and see if we can come up with something together. Is this really something that you don't see happening, in practice?
  - Double_a_92 9y ago
    That's why I think that interview challenges should be "easy". E.g. something like "Make a number guessing game." 1. It's easy enough so you can talk and explain while solving it. 2. It can show your ability to split problems into smaller subproblems. 3. It maybe filters people that just memorize a bunch of solutions, since it's open how exactly you solve it.

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

Problem solving is pattern matching/recognition. Many of us solve problems wordlessly in our head with no explainable "thought process". After solving it, i can explain quite clearly but not during. One does NOT need to be able to simultaneously solve & explain how you solve an abstract algorithm problem to be a good engineer either. Dont kid yourself its only an "important skill" because you like to test for it.

mplewis 9y ago
Part of hiring is finding out if someone can work well with a team. Lots of teams need everyone to be able to communicate well during collaborative problem solving sessions. I've worked with the strong, silent type of coworker who has a solution in their head. But because they don't vocalize what they're thinking, I can't participate or help. That's not what I'm looking for in a good engineer and a good coworker.
- flamedoge 9y ago
  strong and silent is fine, as long as they are on the same page as you and you as them. It might take magic to do that. Communicating effectively is an important thing to avoid wasting time in red herrings.
- Scarblac 9y ago
  It depends on who you already have in your team. Having a few members who can solve hard problems on their own is great, and they usually have to be silent and focused while doing it. You also need people who are good at participating and helping and explaining their thought process. A team that has only one type isn't going to be the most effective team.
- Juliate 9y ago
  It's not "good" versus "bad" engineer/coworker. It's a different way of functioning. Some people (I'd guess introverts, although I'm not sure) need to internalize to think and can't interact much at this point. Some can think and discuss at the same time. From these two sets of people, some can afterward verbally explain the reasoning and the solution, some can't. Some may also only require a context warm-up. That makes 4 sets of people already. "Technical" phone interviews that screen candidates that can solve whatever riddle, filter for a very specific set of people. Not necessarily the best in any context. But a specific set that works for them. Just admit/accept it.

ubernostrum 9y ago

On the other hand, if you're cargo-culting interview practices from third-hand accounts of what BigCo tech companies do, you've demonstrated that you're probably not someone I want to work for. So it evens out!

ycombobreaker 9y ago
You are the one making an assumption that the GP is parroting BigCo tech company interviews.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Their comment referred to a hard problem with a solution written on the "board". Smells like cargo-culting of BigCo whiteboard interviews to me.

kosma 9y ago

There are other thinking styles beside verbal. You're basically throwing out a large portion of candidates, including very talented ones (as having visual/logical thinking style comes with its own perks, sometimes very valuable).

varjag 9y ago

Ugh, so coming up with a perfect solution to a riddle isn't enough in an interview now apparently. You guys just can't be pleased :) Perhaps you can simply ask how they arrived to their solution, you owe them at least that. Or be upfront that they should reason aloud.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Steve-_-Jobs 9y ago

If I speak anything while solving the problem, this will distract me greatly from actually solving it and also embarass me a lot because I usually immediately recognize that an attempt of solution I'm thinking about is not right, so I don't want to sound like an idiot speaking about stupid solutions which don't work.

Double_a_92 9y ago

If the problem is too hard it's not always possible to talk or draw something while thinking about it. You go through dozens of possible solutions in your head, to find a good one. That's like asking a champion chessplayer to explain what he's thinking about while trying to make a move. So this only works if the candidate already knows the solution, and knows which way is right and just explains that one (and maybe a few bad alternatives on purpose). Or if the problem is relatively easy.