6 ms·

Which may have proven nothing more than this person was too nervous to function.

aje403 9y ago
If you've been coding for 30 years and you get too nervous to write fizzbuzz when talking to people, that doesn't mean they should hire you, that means you either have personal life problems going on or you need to see a psychologist
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  Historically, and if we're talking about someone with 30 years programming experience, this history is very relevant - programming has been a popular field for smart but antisocial/unsocialized nerds who had very few if any friends growing up and have spent much of their life alone at a computer. For a person with that background, simply sharing a relatively small private room with a total stranger can be overwhelming. It doesn't matter what trivial test you're giving them, if they're not able to think. The test is failing to actually determine if the person can do the technical part of the job, instead it's testing how the person performs in close quarters shared with unfamiliar people. The whole giving homework for technical vetting is a great way to get around this class of problems.
  - aje403 9y ago
    But what if you're looking to hire people who go outside sometimes and can talk to people and can write code too? Or should that be illegal?
    - talmand 9y ago
      Now we're tacking on an additional aspect of the job that we didn't know about before. If the job requires a social interaction with people outside of the company then, of course, it becomes a factor. Let's not be silly in an effort to just be right and prove someone else wrong.
      - aje403 9y ago
        People exist inside the company too, and sometimes when you are employed there, you need to have "social interactions" with those people, even if a lot of your time is spent writing code. I'm sorry, I'm not going to be polite - I think you are a complete moron if you believe companies should re-tailor their interview process to specifically suit people with anxiety attacks and no social skills
        droidist2 9y ago
        They should if they want those people, if not then don't. But if you don't, you shouldn't also complain there's a shortage of skilled people.
    - newnewpdro 9y ago
      It's not like you forego the in-person interview and don't learn what you can from that. The point is, by including a take-home portion of the technical interview you can get a better sense of the individual's technical abilities. If, in addition to what seems to be a technically competent individual, you find they don't perform well in-person, then you take that data and weigh it against where your priorities lie for the position. There's a huge difference in knowing "technically great, performs poorly with an audience" vs. "technically poor, but we only tested them with an audience". Furthermore, it's not uncommon for people who experience anxiety during the in-person to loosen up as they acclimate to the office environment and their peers. These people can actually be some of the best contributors, and it can be a very costly mistake to misjudge them. This personality type tends to be quite loyal and averse to changing positions, because the whole process of interviewing and acclimating to a new environment is so stressful to them. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder in this discussion, are you having a bad day?
      - aje403 9y ago
        Not at all, I'm enjoying myself and the debate (while finding it kafkaesque that people are finding ways to defend failing fizzbuzz on an interview). How are you doing today? That might be the only legitimate point I've read in this chain so far - if you hire people too socially impaired to write fizzbuzz, they'll be less likely to job hop.
tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
So hire everyone who can't function during the interview?
- trowawee 9y ago
  I know several really, really good programmers with pretty intense anxiety. Automatically ruling them out because of a poorly-formatted interview process would be a big mistake.
  - tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
    Not if you can find others who are just as good. And what's your better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code and not filtering out the good ones with anxiety?
    - trowawee 9y ago
      Take-home tests. Lower-stress environments for coding tests - working on their own hardware, working remotely, no panel interviews, no actively combative/aggressive interviews. Also, cool aspect of that: all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix.
      - tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
        > Take-home tests. But people are already crying over take-home tests being like working for free for the company, and then there's no way to prove they aren't cheating, which is a showstopper. That by itself is definitely not a "better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code". > all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. No for people who can competently handle an onsite interview and don't want hours of extra work at home. > And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix. Maybe you being so disingenuous makes you feel better, but interviews aren't "angry/combative/aggressive" just because someone asks to see some code on a whiteboard.

If you've been coding for 30 years and you get too nervous to write fizzbuzz when talking to people, that doesn't mean they should hire you, that means you either have personal life problems going on or you need to see a psychologist

newnewpdro 9y ago
Historically, and if we're talking about someone with 30 years programming experience, this history is very relevant - programming has been a popular field for smart but antisocial/unsocialized nerds who had very few if any friends growing up and have spent much of their life alone at a computer. For a person with that background, simply sharing a relatively small private room with a total stranger can be overwhelming. It doesn't matter what trivial test you're giving them, if they're not able to think. The test is failing to actually determine if the person can do the technical part of the job, instead it's testing how the person performs in close quarters shared with unfamiliar people. The whole giving homework for technical vetting is a great way to get around this class of problems.
- aje403 9y ago
  But what if you're looking to hire people who go outside sometimes and can talk to people and can write code too? Or should that be illegal?
  - talmand 9y ago
    Now we're tacking on an additional aspect of the job that we didn't know about before. If the job requires a social interaction with people outside of the company then, of course, it becomes a factor. Let's not be silly in an effort to just be right and prove someone else wrong.
    - aje403 9y ago
      People exist inside the company too, and sometimes when you are employed there, you need to have "social interactions" with those people, even if a lot of your time is spent writing code. I'm sorry, I'm not going to be polite - I think you are a complete moron if you believe companies should re-tailor their interview process to specifically suit people with anxiety attacks and no social skills
      - droidist2 9y ago
        They should if they want those people, if not then don't. But if you don't, you shouldn't also complain there's a shortage of skilled people.
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    It's not like you forego the in-person interview and don't learn what you can from that. The point is, by including a take-home portion of the technical interview you can get a better sense of the individual's technical abilities. If, in addition to what seems to be a technically competent individual, you find they don't perform well in-person, then you take that data and weigh it against where your priorities lie for the position. There's a huge difference in knowing "technically great, performs poorly with an audience" vs. "technically poor, but we only tested them with an audience". Furthermore, it's not uncommon for people who experience anxiety during the in-person to loosen up as they acclimate to the office environment and their peers. These people can actually be some of the best contributors, and it can be a very costly mistake to misjudge them. This personality type tends to be quite loyal and averse to changing positions, because the whole process of interviewing and acclimating to a new environment is so stressful to them. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder in this discussion, are you having a bad day?
    - aje403 9y ago
      Not at all, I'm enjoying myself and the debate (while finding it kafkaesque that people are finding ways to defend failing fizzbuzz on an interview). How are you doing today? That might be the only legitimate point I've read in this chain so far - if you hire people too socially impaired to write fizzbuzz, they'll be less likely to job hop.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago

So hire everyone who can't function during the interview?

trowawee 9y ago
I know several really, really good programmers with pretty intense anxiety. Automatically ruling them out because of a poorly-formatted interview process would be a big mistake.
- tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
  Not if you can find others who are just as good. And what's your better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code and not filtering out the good ones with anxiety?
  - trowawee 9y ago
    Take-home tests. Lower-stress environments for coding tests - working on their own hardware, working remotely, no panel interviews, no actively combative/aggressive interviews. Also, cool aspect of that: all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix.
    - tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
      > Take-home tests. But people are already crying over take-home tests being like working for free for the company, and then there's no way to prove they aren't cheating, which is a showstopper. That by itself is definitely not a "better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code". > all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. No for people who can competently handle an onsite interview and don't want hours of extra work at home. > And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix. Maybe you being so disingenuous makes you feel better, but interviews aren't "angry/combative/aggressive" just because someone asks to see some code on a whiteboard.