4 ms·

In the past I've given programming tasks that mimic real life work as closely as possible and fit them into a reasonable time frame - for example, 1 hour of pai

In the past I've given programming tasks that mimic real life work as closely as possible and fit them into a reasonable time frame - for example, 1 hour of pairing/programming during an arranged face to face interview. If the test is well designed, touches on a number of areas and self contained, I think this was sufficient for me to assess their skills. "Mimic real life" means no puzzles (unless I've literally experienced them in real life), no binary tree reversals and no big O notation questions. >You have just dismissed most tech companies. All the large ones (Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) give coding puzzles as part of their interview process. I think that type of thinking leads to embarrassments like this: https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 I think he experienced exactly the same problem the OP is talking about and in this case it's not him who was dumb, it was Google. I wouldn't rule out any of those companies but I think I'd rule out joining through the standard interview process - I'd look for specific people who looked to be doing exciting work on specific teams and try to befriend them. >you'd be wrong to say they have an entitlement complex or aren't the smartest. I think it would depend upon the team. I think they're not all geniuses, and they do have a tendency to drink their own kool aid. For sure some teams are great though.

bitL 9y ago
Getting to Google is more difficult than getting to Harvard. They built their process that way risking rejecting great candidates in order to minimize false positives, bad hires, according to their definition of bad hire. So the Homebrew author could have expected it, it happens all the time. I object to using the same criteria throughout the industry on most jobs these days though, instead of only on top-end ones. I have nothing against top companies having top interviews, they are usually fun if you are good.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  Explain to me the justification behind using an interview process that deliberately placed no emphasis on realism. This guy wouldn't be using binary trees at Google. He hasn't used them before. They are of minimal relevance in his area of expertise.
  - bitL 9y ago
    I guess you need to talk to Norvig or whoever designed their data-driven process and the definition of good hire they wanted to achieve. It used to be that when you joined Google you had no clue what your project will be before your first day, so I guess they wanted to maximize success rate on blind assignments to teams/ideas. For that certain abstract skills are more important than your past accomplishments you might not be able to reproduce in different environment with different rules. It's their money after all, they are desirable, they can select for whatever they wish.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      So, to be clear, you thought good reasons for an unrealistic testing process were: * Argument from authority (because Norvig) * "We might want to put a front ender in a back end job and vice versa so we need an interview process that accounts for that" * Tests of "abstract skills" - as in, skills you won't actually use - are more important than tests of non-abstract skills which you will. * "It's their money"
      - bitL 9y ago
        Nope. > * Argument from authority (because Norvig) No. I suggested you might want to ask Norvig why did they decide so > front ender in a back end job I think it's a bit different. It's like you are creating completely new stuff like Big Data 15 years ago where frontend/backend separation didn't exist yet. Likely the same holds for various machine learning roles right now. So those categories we will be using in the future have to be invented first, and for that you need slightly different approach
dahart 9y ago
> 1 hour of pairing/programming during an arranged face to face interview. If the test is well designed, touches on a number of areas and self contained, I think this was sufficient for me to assess their skills. Sounds great. I've done this too, but I've never done it before screening candidates. I don't have enough time to screen candidates by programming with them. > "Mimic real life" means no puzzles (unless I've literally experienced them in real life), no binary tree reversals and no big O notation questions. Understood. My goal with my coding quizzes and knowledge questions is not to mimic real life. It's to asses the boundaries of the candidate's education and experience, without regard to skill. > I think that type of thinking leads to embarrassments like this There always have been and always will be false negatives, even with lengthy face-to-face interviews, even with pair programming, and even with paid internships. One high profile false negative anecdote, while unfortunate, doesn't imply there's a widespread or unexpected problem. Applying for jobs always comes with a risk of not getting the job for a wide variety of factors that are outside the candidate's control. If it's a job you really want, all you can do is try hard. I love homebrew, and I'm sure @mxcl is a fabulous coder, but the tweet you shared does make it sound like he expected to get the job without an interview, and might have come across that way, or might have not prepared at all.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >I've never done it before screening candidates No me neither. I screened with a 5 minute fizz buzz like task and CV fits. Bad programmers slipped through the net (and were caught by the test) but I never got anybody who literally couldnt code. I was happy with that balance. I was afraid if I made it longer than 5 mins we'd filter out good candidates who couldn't be bothered with our bullshit. >One high profile false negative anecdote, while unfortunate, doesn't imply there's a widespread or unexpected problem. It does imply that it just doesn't prove it. A wanton disregard for realism in interviewing is, in my experience, very clearly systemic and industry-wide. >tweet you shared does make it sound like he expected to get the job without an interview Seriously wtf? I think you're starstruck by Google and that is affecting your judgement. Asking him about binary trees was dumb. Unless Google place him somewhere patently unsuitable for his skill set (kernel hacking/low level database code), he won't be using binary trees.

bitL 9y ago

Getting to Google is more difficult than getting to Harvard. They built their process that way risking rejecting great candidates in order to minimize false positives, bad hires, according to their definition of bad hire. So the Homebrew author could have expected it, it happens all the time. I object to using the same criteria throughout the industry on most jobs these days though, instead of only on top-end ones. I have nothing against top companies having top interviews, they are usually fun if you are good.

crdoconnor 9y ago
Explain to me the justification behind using an interview process that deliberately placed no emphasis on realism. This guy wouldn't be using binary trees at Google. He hasn't used them before. They are of minimal relevance in his area of expertise.
- bitL 9y ago
  I guess you need to talk to Norvig or whoever designed their data-driven process and the definition of good hire they wanted to achieve. It used to be that when you joined Google you had no clue what your project will be before your first day, so I guess they wanted to maximize success rate on blind assignments to teams/ideas. For that certain abstract skills are more important than your past accomplishments you might not be able to reproduce in different environment with different rules. It's their money after all, they are desirable, they can select for whatever they wish.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    So, to be clear, you thought good reasons for an unrealistic testing process were: * Argument from authority (because Norvig) * "We might want to put a front ender in a back end job and vice versa so we need an interview process that accounts for that" * Tests of "abstract skills" - as in, skills you won't actually use - are more important than tests of non-abstract skills which you will. * "It's their money"
    - bitL 9y ago
      Nope. > * Argument from authority (because Norvig) No. I suggested you might want to ask Norvig why did they decide so > front ender in a back end job I think it's a bit different. It's like you are creating completely new stuff like Big Data 15 years ago where frontend/backend separation didn't exist yet. Likely the same holds for various machine learning roles right now. So those categories we will be using in the future have to be invented first, and for that you need slightly different approach

dahart 9y ago

> 1 hour of pairing/programming during an arranged face to face interview. If the test is well designed, touches on a number of areas and self contained, I think this was sufficient for me to assess their skills. Sounds great. I've done this too, but I've never done it before screening candidates. I don't have enough time to screen candidates by programming with them. > "Mimic real life" means no puzzles (unless I've literally experienced them in real life), no binary tree reversals and no big O notation questions. Understood. My goal with my coding quizzes and knowledge questions is not to mimic real life. It's to asses the boundaries of the candidate's education and experience, without regard to skill. > I think that type of thinking leads to embarrassments like this There always have been and always will be false negatives, even with lengthy face-to-face interviews, even with pair programming, and even with paid internships. One high profile false negative anecdote, while unfortunate, doesn't imply there's a widespread or unexpected problem. Applying for jobs always comes with a risk of not getting the job for a wide variety of factors that are outside the candidate's control. If it's a job you really want, all you can do is try hard. I love homebrew, and I'm sure @mxcl is a fabulous coder, but the tweet you shared does make it sound like he expected to get the job without an interview, and might have come across that way, or might have not prepared at all.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>I've never done it before screening candidates No me neither. I screened with a 5 minute fizz buzz like task and CV fits. Bad programmers slipped through the net (and were caught by the test) but I never got anybody who literally couldnt code. I was happy with that balance. I was afraid if I made it longer than 5 mins we'd filter out good candidates who couldn't be bothered with our bullshit. >One high profile false negative anecdote, while unfortunate, doesn't imply there's a widespread or unexpected problem. It does imply that it just doesn't prove it. A wanton disregard for realism in interviewing is, in my experience, very clearly systemic and industry-wide. >tweet you shared does make it sound like he expected to get the job without an interview Seriously wtf? I think you're starstruck by Google and that is affecting your judgement. Asking him about binary trees was dumb. Unless Google place him somewhere patently unsuitable for his skill set (kernel hacking/low level database code), he won't be using binary trees.