3 ms·

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 expla

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.

virgilp 9y ago
Depends what you're testing for. If I'm testing for problem-solving skills, I will pick increasingly harder problems, until you can't solve them. I will judge you on how well you performed on the one you couldn't solve.
- Double_a_92 9y ago
  The problem is that you can't just solve the hard problems (e.g. those from hackerrack) like that by just thinking about it for some time (it would probably need hours or days of research). You just have to learn and remember some obscure algorithm to solve them. That just filter for "unexperienced" people that have enough time to actually learn a lot of algorithms by heart. I.e. that would be fresh graduates. But then you could just look at their uni grades, if you want people who are good at learning.
  - virgilp 9y ago
    > The problem is that you can't just solve the hard problems Which is why I said I don't expect them to solve the problem, I'm interested to see: - the general thought process - whether the candidate is inclined to jump at the solution or clarify the problem (neither approach is "disqualifying", btw! but for a senior position I do kinda' expect the candidate to recognize when a specification is incomplete, and I will provide increasingly ambiguous problems/questions to see when he stops making assumptions) - that the candidate is capable to identify some "leads"/ subproblems that need to be solved first/ to reduce the problem to a different one/ etc. > But then you could just look at their uni grades, if you want people who are good at learning. If only it was so simple... some people are good at learning, they just don't have good grades (e.g. they have to work to support themselves and don't care much about some grades); while others are good at getting generally good grades without actually being good learners (extreme example: cheaters).

virgilp 9y ago

Depends what you're testing for. If I'm testing for problem-solving skills, I will pick increasingly harder problems, until you can't solve them. I will judge you on how well you performed on the one you couldn't solve.

Double_a_92 9y ago
The problem is that you can't just solve the hard problems (e.g. those from hackerrack) like that by just thinking about it for some time (it would probably need hours or days of research). You just have to learn and remember some obscure algorithm to solve them. That just filter for "unexperienced" people that have enough time to actually learn a lot of algorithms by heart. I.e. that would be fresh graduates. But then you could just look at their uni grades, if you want people who are good at learning.
- virgilp 9y ago
  > The problem is that you can't just solve the hard problems Which is why I said I don't expect them to solve the problem, I'm interested to see: - the general thought process - whether the candidate is inclined to jump at the solution or clarify the problem (neither approach is "disqualifying", btw! but for a senior position I do kinda' expect the candidate to recognize when a specification is incomplete, and I will provide increasingly ambiguous problems/questions to see when he stops making assumptions) - that the candidate is capable to identify some "leads"/ subproblems that need to be solved first/ to reduce the problem to a different one/ etc. > But then you could just look at their uni grades, if you want people who are good at learning. If only it was so simple... some people are good at learning, they just don't have good grades (e.g. they have to work to support themselves and don't care much about some grades); while others are good at getting generally good grades without actually being good learners (extreme example: cheaters).