3 ms·

Said space shuttle firmware engineer probably never had to solve a pop-quiz problem on a whiteboard. It's much more likely that he/she deliberated for weeks abo

Said space shuttle firmware engineer probably never had to solve a pop-quiz problem on a whiteboard. It's much more likely that he/she deliberated for weeks about a simple change with the rest of their team, and perhaps even with the person/astronaut they might kill if the change had a bad bug. Who cares if this person can't solve fizz-buzz on the whiteboard? That's probably not even a relevant skill to the job opening you're filling, or a skill they have ever needed to hone or practice. It's like determining a marathon runner's worth by timing their 100 yard dash. If I ever need to do another coding interview again, I'm gonna troll the person asking the question by pulling out my phone, googling their question, and consulting the stack overflow post in the search results to solve the problem. And why not, this is how I (and the vast majority of people) will actually get the job done in a real situation.

cpolis 8y ago
Developing software requires high level/architecture type decisions that you mention in your first paragraph. It also requires solving many small fizz-buzz size subtasks, which are necessary and demonstrate competency. A marathon runner doesn't need a stellar 100 yard dash time, but they should at least be able to jog 100 yards.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  "It also requires solving many small fizz-buzz size subtasks" If you're working on the shuttle, those small tasks generally won't be surprises. They will have been planned out well in advance.
eadmund 8y ago
> Said space shuttle firmware engineer probably never had to solve a pop-quiz problem on a whiteboard. It's much more likely that he/she deliberated for weeks about a simple change with the rest of their team, and perhaps even with the person/astronaut they might kill if the change had a bad bug. > Who cares if this person can't solve fizz-buzz on the whiteboard? That's probably not even a relevant skill to the job opening you're filling, or a skill they have ever needed to hone or practice. Thing is, shuttle-style development is also probably not even a relevant skill to the job opening he's filling. Odds are, that job requires something more akin to FizzBuzz ('I want to do something. How do I do it?') than to shuttle-firmware.
- ereyes01 8y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that solving a fizz-buzz-like pop quiz on the board is a very different skill from sitting at a desk with internet access and collaborating with team members to solve an engineering problem, even if they reduce to fizz-buzz-like solutions. For this reason, the whiteboard pop-quizzes are not really useful in evaluating how well the candidate will perform on the job. I've worked with terrible team members that have aced their interviews / exams, and I've worked with amazing engineers who crashed and burned spectacularly in their interviews and do so regularly. Also, another thing to consider is how this kind of interview encounter negatively affects diversity and the experience of candidates from different cultural backgrounds. If we treat this form of interview a sort of hazing experience that doesn't really inform on their aptitude on the job, what kind of traits does this process _actually_ select for? Would be an interesting study.

cpolis 8y ago

Developing software requires high level/architecture type decisions that you mention in your first paragraph. It also requires solving many small fizz-buzz size subtasks, which are necessary and demonstrate competency. A marathon runner doesn't need a stellar 100 yard dash time, but they should at least be able to jog 100 yards.

jonhendry18 8y ago
"It also requires solving many small fizz-buzz size subtasks" If you're working on the shuttle, those small tasks generally won't be surprises. They will have been planned out well in advance.

eadmund 8y ago

> Said space shuttle firmware engineer probably never had to solve a pop-quiz problem on a whiteboard. It's much more likely that he/she deliberated for weeks about a simple change with the rest of their team, and perhaps even with the person/astronaut they might kill if the change had a bad bug. > Who cares if this person can't solve fizz-buzz on the whiteboard? That's probably not even a relevant skill to the job opening you're filling, or a skill they have ever needed to hone or practice. Thing is, shuttle-style development is also probably not even a relevant skill to the job opening he's filling. Odds are, that job requires something more akin to FizzBuzz ('I want to do something. How do I do it?') than to shuttle-firmware.

ereyes01 8y ago
The point I'm trying to make is that solving a fizz-buzz-like pop quiz on the board is a very different skill from sitting at a desk with internet access and collaborating with team members to solve an engineering problem, even if they reduce to fizz-buzz-like solutions. For this reason, the whiteboard pop-quizzes are not really useful in evaluating how well the candidate will perform on the job. I've worked with terrible team members that have aced their interviews / exams, and I've worked with amazing engineers who crashed and burned spectacularly in their interviews and do so regularly. Also, another thing to consider is how this kind of interview encounter negatively affects diversity and the experience of candidates from different cultural backgrounds. If we treat this form of interview a sort of hazing experience that doesn't really inform on their aptitude on the job, what kind of traits does this process _actually_ select for? Would be an interesting study.