6 ms·

Perhaps it's because you insist on testing their ability to live code on the spot as a performance piece, and misinterpreting that as testing their ability to c

by psyc 9y ago

Perhaps it's because you insist on testing their ability to live code on the spot as a performance piece, and misinterpreting that as testing their ability to code. If you're turning down someone who wrote space shuttle firmware, because they "can't do fizzbuzz", then you are administering a terrible test and getting a false negative. I have 20 years of industry experience. Everything on my resume is the truth. I've worked on serious code, for serious projects, at serious companies. At work, my performance reviews have been stellar. When I do live coding interviews, I'm being tested with tasks that are utterly remedial relative to what I've done professionally over long periods of time. Yet I flub these remedial tasks. It could be because I'm nervous. Could be because the interviewer keeps interrupting me mid-line, so I can't think. Could be they are too terse, and I can't drag enough information out of them. Could be the problem is slightly more complex than I can accomplish under any circumstances in a live performance, but that I could complete correctly in a closed room. These interviews are degrading, disrespectful, and they tell lies to the misguided interviewer. What do they think they're testing the candidate for? Why does it matter whether you can code something remedial, live? Is live performance part of the job function? Do other professions do this? We should end this practice.

Arzh 9y ago
Then the other option is to do a small take home test. Are you ok with that?
- psyc 9y ago
  Yes. I strongly prefer an offline test, if it realistically wouldn't take more than a few hours.
  - Arzh 9y ago
    Yeah we try to have a limit of 4 hours for this kinda thing. We understand that it is the interviewee's free time but when you need to screen 12 people for a job it is not worth a Senior Engineers time for a small startup.
    - toss1 9y ago
      WHAT?!? Getting the right team is one of, if not THE key to startup success. Yet you consider it not worth a senior engineer's time to evaluate the candidates for the next hire, and the presumably with whom they will need to work - productively? Check your org's runway and be sure to have your resume ready when it gets close to the end. I wouldn't expect take-off.
      - Arzh 9y ago
        Sorry I assumed that the word 'screen' was universal. This is the first step, it is a waste of a senior engineers time with a candidate that is not even close to ready for the job.
        toss1 9y ago
        Yes, I suppose 'screen' is a bit ambiguous. Doesn't seem like a pool of a dozen is the first step. I'd want the Sr Devs involved at least out past the final half-dozen if not dozen -- not for 4 hours each, but at least a chat about what they've done, problem-solving approaches, etc. I wish you luck
- Clubber 9y ago
  The other, other option is just refuse to do either. I get all my work from friends I've worked with in the last 20 or so years. I mean if a company insists on these hiring practices, and they continue to get bad applications because of it, the probably aren't going to be around for long anyway.
  - Arzh 9y ago
    Ok so you are out of the running for this, this is obviously for testing people you have never met before.
- irq11 9y ago
  The other option is to check references, do credential checks, and simple bullshit screens during interviews, like every other professional interview. Literally every other profession has this challenge! Programmers are unique only in their seeming inability to realize that they are not unique. Accountants are not asked to solve double-entry accounting whiteboard problems. Finance professionals are not given take-home banking projects. Only programmers seem to be unable to be reasonable interviewers.
  - psyc 9y ago
    Yes. I told the interviewer he could call any of my past managers, knowing they would take the call, and knowing they’d give a glowing report. He laughed!
    - preordained 9y ago
      Well...fuck that guy. There is really no better measure, assuming you have the basic social skills to see through a con job/scam. I mean yah, you could always be tricked into calling someone's buddy or something, but with any depth or tactful questions that is rarely going to fool anyone.
  - anthuswilliams 9y ago
    This is not to take away from your point, since I agree with you, but both accountants and finance professionals have stringent licensing requirements which (in theory) could provide a baseline expectation of competence.
    - Arzh 9y ago
      That is the reason they get away with not testing them, because they have a universal test they can look to. Software jobs are pretty fluid, so unless we have a massive standard test that cover anything from embedded c to FE with react, it seems that kind of test is out of reach for software people.
      - 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago
I'm intrigued by the on the spot performance aspect, so I wonder if anyone has performed a skit at an interview. It's a tempting idea. Some people are intrigued by live performance, especially the kind with constraints like this, people like Frank Abagnale for example.
- itronitron 9y ago
  Probably, most likely on the Ali G show. If you know enough inside details on the typical interview pattern at a company this would be easy to do, and you would probably get the job.
monocasa 9y ago
> If you're turning down someone who wrote space shuttle firmware, because they "can't do fizzbuzz", then you are administering a terrible test and getting a false negative. Or... large companies, particularly defense, excel at hiding mediocrity in their ranks, and it's easy for someone who produces no or negative work to be handed around rather than fired.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vehementi 9y ago
  Or not
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Small companies also excel at hiding mediocrity. What's the success rate for startups? The reality here is that everyone is supposing their particular bias explains what happened. No one seems to have asked what actually went wrong in the interview. Was the interviewee truly incompetent? Were they nervous? Were they fine at code but terrible at interviews? Was the language or environment unfamiliar? Had they just got off a plane after zero hours of sleep? Without data, opinions are worthless. And generally, there's too little data about the relationship between interview performance and job performance, and too much unthinking mimicry: "We do this because everyone else does."
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    > Small companies also excel at hiding mediocrity. > What's the success rate for startups? While there are certainly mediocre coders in many many startups, let's put the blame for most startup failures firmly where it lies: "It was a turd of an idea and no-one told the founder/the founder didn't believe it." not "It was an amazing revolutionary concept that was only sabotaged by dimwits who couldn't fizzbuzz."
pishpash 9y ago
The equivalent would be asking a math professor to do integration by hand. They can do it, but that's probably not the job they want anyway.
ccajas 9y ago
That is why I advocate for a hypothetical "bar exam" for the software programming profession. I also posted a question concerning that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16702389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16702389 Going through a series of technical filters is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that each company has its own set of filters, many times with skills that don't necessarily transfer to other interviews. With the "bar exam" approach, you only need to pass 1 exam for N number of companies, leverage that to fast-track through a company interview. With the current approach, you need to take N exams for N companies, and return to square one if you fail. There is no extra layer of validation that lets you keep a "ahead" placement in these interviews. Company specific interviews should focus on basic soft skills, and if they mesh well with the team. I'm an experienced programmer- not yet considered senior level, but have worked at several companies -and having a hell of a time going through my latest job hunt. I have been applying for jobs for 3 years straight now, and it's telling that the only offers I've gotten were three short term contract gigs- one from a past employer who's already familiar with my work, and two from small studios with a very informal process where they just looked at my resume and Github projects and with that, they were very convinced that I'm the man for their job. I took these jobs mainly to add more skills and to fill up the gaping time hole in my resume. But for the "regular" full-time jobs at businesses, big or small, local or on the west coast (I'm a midwesterner), I have not gotten an offer. I've been through many tests and live coding going through a lot of things. Triplebyte expects you to be a speed demon, but at least they give detailed feedback on what you did wrong. So what is with the saturation of applicants and tendency to make the hiring process slower and slower? That's what these coding tests and interviews do, they make the process slower. It's not 2009 anymore- unemployment is reasonably low, so this current phenomena of rigorous testing shouldn't happen. More programmers need to discover and embrace the power of collective bargaining.
- mountainofdeath 9y ago
  I've been advocating for the same thing except I call it a "Software Engineering License".

by psyc 9y ago

Arzh 9y ago

Then the other option is to do a small take home test. Are you ok with that?

psyc 9y ago
Yes. I strongly prefer an offline test, if it realistically wouldn't take more than a few hours.
- Arzh 9y ago
  Yeah we try to have a limit of 4 hours for this kinda thing. We understand that it is the interviewee's free time but when you need to screen 12 people for a job it is not worth a Senior Engineers time for a small startup.
  - toss1 9y ago
    WHAT?!? Getting the right team is one of, if not THE key to startup success. Yet you consider it not worth a senior engineer's time to evaluate the candidates for the next hire, and the presumably with whom they will need to work - productively? Check your org's runway and be sure to have your resume ready when it gets close to the end. I wouldn't expect take-off.
    - Arzh 9y ago
      Sorry I assumed that the word 'screen' was universal. This is the first step, it is a waste of a senior engineers time with a candidate that is not even close to ready for the job.
      - toss1 9y ago
        Yes, I suppose 'screen' is a bit ambiguous. Doesn't seem like a pool of a dozen is the first step. I'd want the Sr Devs involved at least out past the final half-dozen if not dozen -- not for 4 hours each, but at least a chat about what they've done, problem-solving approaches, etc. I wish you luck
Clubber 9y ago
The other, other option is just refuse to do either. I get all my work from friends I've worked with in the last 20 or so years. I mean if a company insists on these hiring practices, and they continue to get bad applications because of it, the probably aren't going to be around for long anyway.
- Arzh 9y ago
  Ok so you are out of the running for this, this is obviously for testing people you have never met before.
irq11 9y ago
The other option is to check references, do credential checks, and simple bullshit screens during interviews, like every other professional interview. Literally every other profession has this challenge! Programmers are unique only in their seeming inability to realize that they are not unique. Accountants are not asked to solve double-entry accounting whiteboard problems. Finance professionals are not given take-home banking projects. Only programmers seem to be unable to be reasonable interviewers.
- psyc 9y ago
  Yes. I told the interviewer he could call any of my past managers, knowing they would take the call, and knowing they’d give a glowing report. He laughed!
  - preordained 9y ago
    Well...fuck that guy. There is really no better measure, assuming you have the basic social skills to see through a con job/scam. I mean yah, you could always be tricked into calling someone's buddy or something, but with any depth or tactful questions that is rarely going to fool anyone.
- anthuswilliams 9y ago
  This is not to take away from your point, since I agree with you, but both accountants and finance professionals have stringent licensing requirements which (in theory) could provide a baseline expectation of competence.
  - Arzh 9y ago
    That is the reason they get away with not testing them, because they have a universal test they can look to. Software jobs are pretty fluid, so unless we have a massive standard test that cover anything from embedded c to FE with react, it seems that kind of test is out of reach for software people.
    - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

0xdeadbeefbabe 9y ago

I'm intrigued by the on the spot performance aspect, so I wonder if anyone has performed a skit at an interview. It's a tempting idea. Some people are intrigued by live performance, especially the kind with constraints like this, people like Frank Abagnale for example.

itronitron 9y ago
Probably, most likely on the Ali G show. If you know enough inside details on the typical interview pattern at a company this would be easy to do, and you would probably get the job.

monocasa 9y ago

> If you're turning down someone who wrote space shuttle firmware, because they "can't do fizzbuzz", then you are administering a terrible test and getting a false negative. Or... large companies, particularly defense, excel at hiding mediocrity in their ranks, and it's easy for someone who produces no or negative work to be handed around rather than fired.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vehementi 9y ago
Or not
TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Small companies also excel at hiding mediocrity. What's the success rate for startups? The reality here is that everyone is supposing their particular bias explains what happened. No one seems to have asked what actually went wrong in the interview. Was the interviewee truly incompetent? Were they nervous? Were they fine at code but terrible at interviews? Was the language or environment unfamiliar? Had they just got off a plane after zero hours of sleep? Without data, opinions are worthless. And generally, there's too little data about the relationship between interview performance and job performance, and too much unthinking mimicry: "We do this because everyone else does."
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > Small companies also excel at hiding mediocrity. > What's the success rate for startups? While there are certainly mediocre coders in many many startups, let's put the blame for most startup failures firmly where it lies: "It was a turd of an idea and no-one told the founder/the founder didn't believe it." not "It was an amazing revolutionary concept that was only sabotaged by dimwits who couldn't fizzbuzz."

pishpash 9y ago

The equivalent would be asking a math professor to do integration by hand. They can do it, but that's probably not the job they want anyway.

ccajas 9y ago

That is why I advocate for a hypothetical "bar exam" for the software programming profession. I also posted a question concerning that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16702389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16702389 Going through a series of technical filters is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is that each company has its own set of filters, many times with skills that don't necessarily transfer to other interviews. With the "bar exam" approach, you only need to pass 1 exam for N number of companies, leverage that to fast-track through a company interview. With the current approach, you need to take N exams for N companies, and return to square one if you fail. There is no extra layer of validation that lets you keep a "ahead" placement in these interviews. Company specific interviews should focus on basic soft skills, and if they mesh well with the team. I'm an experienced programmer- not yet considered senior level, but have worked at several companies -and having a hell of a time going through my latest job hunt. I have been applying for jobs for 3 years straight now, and it's telling that the only offers I've gotten were three short term contract gigs- one from a past employer who's already familiar with my work, and two from small studios with a very informal process where they just looked at my resume and Github projects and with that, they were very convinced that I'm the man for their job. I took these jobs mainly to add more skills and to fill up the gaping time hole in my resume. But for the "regular" full-time jobs at businesses, big or small, local or on the west coast (I'm a midwesterner), I have not gotten an offer. I've been through many tests and live coding going through a lot of things. Triplebyte expects you to be a speed demon, but at least they give detailed feedback on what you did wrong. So what is with the saturation of applicants and tendency to make the hiring process slower and slower? That's what these coding tests and interviews do, they make the process slower. It's not 2009 anymore- unemployment is reasonably low, so this current phenomena of rigorous testing shouldn't happen. More programmers need to discover and embrace the power of collective bargaining.

mountainofdeath 9y ago
I've been advocating for the same thing except I call it a "Software Engineering License".