7 ms·

Nailed it. Let's not forget companies that send algo-heavy tests for front end roles (my personal favorite). Can't they come up with a front end version? Is it

Nailed it. Let's not forget companies that send algo-heavy tests for front end roles (my personal favorite). Can't they come up with a front end version? Is it better that they don't? I'd find it, and similar sites, less objectionable if they were used as interview "extra credit," rather than as gatekeeper screening tools.

mindcrime 9y ago
Let's not forget companies that send algo-heavy tests for front end roles (my personal favorite). Can't they come up with a front end version? Front-end devs don't need to understand algorithms?
- zebraflask 9y ago
  Plenty will tell you: not very often, day to day. The algo part isn't objectionable because it's algo or a test. It's objectionable because it doesn't test the skill set that would be used on the job. I'm sure database admins would be less than thrilled to have to duplicate a mock in CSS. You wouldn't judge an electrician on their carpentry. It's a tired subject that a lot of companies still seem to have trouble grasping.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    Plenty will tell you: not very often, day to day People will tell you all sorts of things. It's objectionable because it doesn't test the skill set that would be used on the job. Maybe they just say that because that's easier than investing the time to develop a good understanding of basic algorithms? Don't get me wrong... I'm all about specialization of labor and all that, and I'm not saying every programmer in the world needs to be able to write a provably correct implementation of a PriorityQueue from scratch, at the drop of a hat. But I would argue that all developers, front-end or otherwise, benefit from algorithmic knowledge, and that it is reasonable to test front-end devs on that knowledge - to a point. And given how much more complex "web apps" are becoming with pretty complex SPA's delivered with lots of complex logic executing on the "front end" I think that's become even more true over the past few years. It's not like "Front end developer" means "person who does CSS styling and can add a few neat effects to a page using javascript". You wouldn't judge an electrician on their carpentry. No you wouldn't but that analogy really doesn't fit the present discussion at all.
    - zebraflask 9y ago
      I think we're missing a key piece of information. I'm referring to companies that want to hire for a specialized role, do no testing germane to the role, but do test competency for the job solely via a skill set that is tangential to the job itself. A lot of places do this. I think it must be a relic of the Google-style interview cargo cult approach to hiring.
  - cdicelico 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but I don't care what you do—if you work in tech, you need to be able to demonstrate an ability to think algorithmically in order to solve problems with a computer. It's a) not acceptable to get by in tech without knowing anything about computers and b) not rocket science—anyone can learn!
    - drdrey 9y ago
      What you're saying is true -- but at the same time it is a bit awkward that there are things you need to work on for interviews only. For instance, I have never had to use linked lists in an actual dev job (~6y experience), but they come up so often in interviews that you just have to practice things like loop detection
      - stmw 9y ago
        It's a little awkward, but not so bad if it's within basics, like linked lists - which one may be rusty on but will generally know or re-derive - rather than really specific algorithms. But that's just a starting point, then it's about the interview and the communication and the interaction - exactly like the examples above of talking to real users or colleagues.
      - user5994461 9y ago
        I have to ask. What roles were you in? and what languages did you develop in?
        stmw 9y ago
        Me?
        user5994461 9y ago
        the poster who said he never had to use a linkedlist in 6 years.
        9y ago
contrarian123 9y ago
I had a math teacher in middle school that put it pretty well: if you have two candidates that are equally qualified, but one knows calculus and the other doesn’t, you may as well go with the one that knows calculus. From a hiring perspective, it cuts down the size of your candidate pool. Interviewing is expensive, so it’s better to choose from 5 people instead of 30. From a personal perspective, I don’t want to work with you if you don’t know how to use a hashmap. There’s a difference between filtering duplicates efficiently and validating a binary tree, so it does it some injustice to lump it all together as irrelevant algorithms testing.
- Jach 9y ago
  I'm very careful inferring information I didn't actually test for. If the output of my process ranks two people the same, I can't do anything but flip a coin for one and recommend hiring both. I can't go back to their resumes and see "ahh yes, this person knows calculus, might as well go with them." Because the other person might know calculus too but didn't think it relevant to put on the resume. If the process is giving equal outputs to multiple candidates, then you might need to fix it to be more granular. There's plenty of room for subjective criteria, e.g. it shouldn't be hard to have a few ranks on "seems nice to work with" metric and so it shouldn't be hard to have a process where equal outputs are unlikely. On the other hand there's the concept of a journeyman in the craft world, anyone with that level of skill is basically interchangeable for the usual jobs. So you might by design have a test that just outputs "at least journeyman level" or not, and you can just hire the first one you find.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    It's impossible to rank two people the same. You will never encounter two people with the same profile, the same experiences in the same domains, who both want to do the same thing next. Well, I suppose if we only look at first year college grad, there is a lot of duplicates.
  - johnsonjo 9y ago
    Some people are different and will differentiate candidates by sometimes seemingly unrelated things. I remember hearing a story in my Engineering Communications class that someone was selected for a job over an equally qualified candidate for putting down that they liked to play chess as a hobby. Apparently the person hiring liked chess and thought it stimulated the mind, and I believe they also thought it gave a more human feeling to the candidate.
drdrey 9y ago
I honestly think this is just going with the easy solution. Doing interviews correctly is hard and time consuming, so the easiest thing is just to do what everyvody else is doing, and that's some form of algorithm problem on a whiteboard.

mindcrime 9y ago

Let's not forget companies that send algo-heavy tests for front end roles (my personal favorite). Can't they come up with a front end version? Front-end devs don't need to understand algorithms?

zebraflask 9y ago
Plenty will tell you: not very often, day to day. The algo part isn't objectionable because it's algo or a test. It's objectionable because it doesn't test the skill set that would be used on the job. I'm sure database admins would be less than thrilled to have to duplicate a mock in CSS. You wouldn't judge an electrician on their carpentry. It's a tired subject that a lot of companies still seem to have trouble grasping.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  Plenty will tell you: not very often, day to day People will tell you all sorts of things. It's objectionable because it doesn't test the skill set that would be used on the job. Maybe they just say that because that's easier than investing the time to develop a good understanding of basic algorithms? Don't get me wrong... I'm all about specialization of labor and all that, and I'm not saying every programmer in the world needs to be able to write a provably correct implementation of a PriorityQueue from scratch, at the drop of a hat. But I would argue that all developers, front-end or otherwise, benefit from algorithmic knowledge, and that it is reasonable to test front-end devs on that knowledge - to a point. And given how much more complex "web apps" are becoming with pretty complex SPA's delivered with lots of complex logic executing on the "front end" I think that's become even more true over the past few years. It's not like "Front end developer" means "person who does CSS styling and can add a few neat effects to a page using javascript". You wouldn't judge an electrician on their carpentry. No you wouldn't but that analogy really doesn't fit the present discussion at all.
  - zebraflask 9y ago
    I think we're missing a key piece of information. I'm referring to companies that want to hire for a specialized role, do no testing germane to the role, but do test competency for the job solely via a skill set that is tangential to the job itself. A lot of places do this. I think it must be a relic of the Google-style interview cargo cult approach to hiring.
- cdicelico 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but I don't care what you do—if you work in tech, you need to be able to demonstrate an ability to think algorithmically in order to solve problems with a computer. It's a) not acceptable to get by in tech without knowing anything about computers and b) not rocket science—anyone can learn!
  - drdrey 9y ago
    What you're saying is true -- but at the same time it is a bit awkward that there are things you need to work on for interviews only. For instance, I have never had to use linked lists in an actual dev job (~6y experience), but they come up so often in interviews that you just have to practice things like loop detection
    - stmw 9y ago
      It's a little awkward, but not so bad if it's within basics, like linked lists - which one may be rusty on but will generally know or re-derive - rather than really specific algorithms. But that's just a starting point, then it's about the interview and the communication and the interaction - exactly like the examples above of talking to real users or colleagues.
    - user5994461 9y ago
      I have to ask. What roles were you in? and what languages did you develop in?
      - stmw 9y ago
        Me?
        user5994461 9y ago
        the poster who said he never had to use a linkedlist in 6 years.
        9y ago

contrarian123 9y ago

I had a math teacher in middle school that put it pretty well: if you have two candidates that are equally qualified, but one knows calculus and the other doesn’t, you may as well go with the one that knows calculus. From a hiring perspective, it cuts down the size of your candidate pool. Interviewing is expensive, so it’s better to choose from 5 people instead of 30. From a personal perspective, I don’t want to work with you if you don’t know how to use a hashmap. There’s a difference between filtering duplicates efficiently and validating a binary tree, so it does it some injustice to lump it all together as irrelevant algorithms testing.

Jach 9y ago
I'm very careful inferring information I didn't actually test for. If the output of my process ranks two people the same, I can't do anything but flip a coin for one and recommend hiring both. I can't go back to their resumes and see "ahh yes, this person knows calculus, might as well go with them." Because the other person might know calculus too but didn't think it relevant to put on the resume. If the process is giving equal outputs to multiple candidates, then you might need to fix it to be more granular. There's plenty of room for subjective criteria, e.g. it shouldn't be hard to have a few ranks on "seems nice to work with" metric and so it shouldn't be hard to have a process where equal outputs are unlikely. On the other hand there's the concept of a journeyman in the craft world, anyone with that level of skill is basically interchangeable for the usual jobs. So you might by design have a test that just outputs "at least journeyman level" or not, and you can just hire the first one you find.
- user5994461 9y ago
  It's impossible to rank two people the same. You will never encounter two people with the same profile, the same experiences in the same domains, who both want to do the same thing next. Well, I suppose if we only look at first year college grad, there is a lot of duplicates.
- johnsonjo 9y ago
  Some people are different and will differentiate candidates by sometimes seemingly unrelated things. I remember hearing a story in my Engineering Communications class that someone was selected for a job over an equally qualified candidate for putting down that they liked to play chess as a hobby. Apparently the person hiring liked chess and thought it stimulated the mind, and I believe they also thought it gave a more human feeling to the candidate.

drdrey 9y ago

I honestly think this is just going with the easy solution. Doing interviews correctly is hard and time consuming, so the easiest thing is just to do what everyvody else is doing, and that's some form of algorithm problem on a whiteboard.