3 ms·

> Only completely failing #0 (i.e. having no clue at all) would disqualify a candidate, IIRC. It is good, but the other points of interest have their influence

by ordu 9y ago

> Only completely failing #0 (i.e. having no clue at all) would disqualify a candidate, IIRC. It is good, but the other points of interest have their influence on the later decision, isn't it? > "yes, we see that you understand this and it is a toy problem, please humour us." This way you are showing that you have some hidden goals, it means that situation is really uncertain. In such a conditions anyone would feel stress and anxiety. Maybe except those who are not interested in outcomes of interview or those who have psychological disabilities and is unable to feel anxiety at all. Lets assume a young candidate, who all his previous life spent on different exams and tests, and therefore percieve this interview as something like exam. > 0. You are capable of solving this 1. Ok. I believe that this is a non zero amount of information. > 1. You can take an educated guess at the complexity If he start to talk about this, than you would be able to measure his ability to do this, but probably he wouldn't start to talk, due to fear to make a mistake. Like on exam, where it is good to show what you know, but not good to show what you do not know. > 2. You are capable of speaking out if the task seems odd. No. He probably would not do that. One of the strategy on exam is to present your best guess with as much confidence as you can express. It is just one of the possible discourses through which candidate could see this situation. I'm not sure which are other possible discourses -- to figure them out one would need to watch a lot of interviews and to ask odd questions to candidates, to explore deeper than one can judge about person discourse based on behaviour only. But the point is: if you confuse a human by situation, the human would experience a stress, and would start to behave in strage ways, which are led not by his/her personality, but by stress itself. And the more unfamiliar overall setup for the person, the more strange ways to behave you would see, because person would find something in his/her past which resembles this sutiation most closely (exam, test, initiation procedure in the informal group of teenagers in the college, or anything like) and would behave accordingly (without conscious decision of course). If interviewer does not take into account the actual discourse candidate is using, if interviewer is using his own discourse to make meaning of behaviour of candidate, that he fools himself, seeing not the real personality of candidate, but something else. It is highly probable that he would see something completely wrong. If you wish to use fizzbuzz for #0 and #1, than do not ask candidate to solve task. Ask him what the first thought he had when sow this task. Ask ten more questions. Break all his discourses and make a new one. Create a discourse of discussing and collaborating, something that resembles real work atmosphere. It would be difficult if person is already in the stress and therefore tighly bound to some other discourse, but if you fail to do this, than all your behavioural tests are not valid. At best such an interview would show technical skills of candidate (if he is capable to use them under the high stress), but does not show his/her psychological/social traits.

Piskvorrr 9y ago
You are overthinking this. All that matters is that the candidate does have a basic competency in algorithms (#0, we were looking for programmers, not just typists); anything beyond that was completely optional (and I believe I have written as much) and a way to get the interview flowing to expectations of both sides. However, if your position is "I believe you want one specific textbook answer to the problem from me, and I refuse to do anything at all instead of risking what I think the interviewer would see as incorrect, even partially," you'd be at a wrong interview: the hidden goal is "let's find some technical problem to talk about, we wish to see an approximation of your problem-solving skills; if that approximation is 'freeze indecisively,' that would hardly solve any problems." If you see making any mistake as a threat (instead of going back-and-forth to an optimal solution), you would burn out on the actual technical challenges of the job within a month - literally none of them had a single, perfect, by-the-book solution, each needed to be iteratively developed; cramming the Right Exam Answers wouldn't have helped you on that job, as there weren't any. Edit: perhaps such person would feel better in a tester/QA position, but does not really strike me as fit for developing (development's usual cycle of trying many things, finding that many of them are not applicable and trying something else, seems like outright torture for someone who needs to have the perfect answer right from the start). Therefore, both sides would find out early, at the interview; in this respect the question would serve its purpose well.
- ordu 9y ago
  > All that matters is that the candidate does have a basic competency in algorithms; anything beyond that is completely optional (and I believe I have written as much). What it means "optional"? Either this options have their influence on your decision, or have no. If they have, than they are not optional. If they does not influence, than they are not options. You are speaking about them, it means for me that they are not completely unimportant. > If you already see making any mistake as a threat (instead of going back-and-forth to an optimal solution), you would burn out on the actual technical challenges within a month... A mistake in competing environment and a mistake in collaborative environment are different kinds of mistakes and leads to different feeling. If your working environment is a collaborative one, but candidates see your tests as competing environment, than you are measuring something that does not matter. > cramming the Right Exam Answers wouldn't have helped you on that job, as there weren't any. Yes! I do talk about the same. Exam strategies learnt by candidate is not interesting to you, but by making from tests a stressful competing experience for candidate you probably measuring this strategies, not the other strategies which are more relevant to you.

by ordu 9y ago

Piskvorrr 9y ago

You are overthinking this. All that matters is that the candidate does have a basic competency in algorithms (#0, we were looking for programmers, not just typists); anything beyond that was completely optional (and I believe I have written as much) and a way to get the interview flowing to expectations of both sides. However, if your position is "I believe you want one specific textbook answer to the problem from me, and I refuse to do anything at all instead of risking what I think the interviewer would see as incorrect, even partially," you'd be at a wrong interview: the hidden goal is "let's find some technical problem to talk about, we wish to see an approximation of your problem-solving skills; if that approximation is 'freeze indecisively,' that would hardly solve any problems." If you see making any mistake as a threat (instead of going back-and-forth to an optimal solution), you would burn out on the actual technical challenges of the job within a month - literally none of them had a single, perfect, by-the-book solution, each needed to be iteratively developed; cramming the Right Exam Answers wouldn't have helped you on that job, as there weren't any. Edit: perhaps such person would feel better in a tester/QA position, but does not really strike me as fit for developing (development's usual cycle of trying many things, finding that many of them are not applicable and trying something else, seems like outright torture for someone who needs to have the perfect answer right from the start). Therefore, both sides would find out early, at the interview; in this respect the question would serve its purpose well.

ordu 9y ago
> All that matters is that the candidate does have a basic competency in algorithms; anything beyond that is completely optional (and I believe I have written as much). What it means "optional"? Either this options have their influence on your decision, or have no. If they have, than they are not optional. If they does not influence, than they are not options. You are speaking about them, it means for me that they are not completely unimportant. > If you already see making any mistake as a threat (instead of going back-and-forth to an optimal solution), you would burn out on the actual technical challenges within a month... A mistake in competing environment and a mistake in collaborative environment are different kinds of mistakes and leads to different feeling. If your working environment is a collaborative one, but candidates see your tests as competing environment, than you are measuring something that does not matter. > cramming the Right Exam Answers wouldn't have helped you on that job, as there weren't any. Yes! I do talk about the same. Exam strategies learnt by candidate is not interesting to you, but by making from tests a stressful competing experience for candidate you probably measuring this strategies, not the other strategies which are more relevant to you.