5 ms·

> Actors and musicians perform in front of an audience Some actors/musicians. Movie actors never perform in front of an audience, TV actors usually don't perfo

> Actors and musicians perform in front of an audience Some actors/musicians. Movie actors never perform in front of an audience, TV actors usually don't perform in front of an audience, studio musicians rarely perform in front of an audience - these professions have auditions (unless you're an A-list actor, but I'm sure most software companies would hire John Carmack without an "audition" so we likewise do the equivalent). But more importantly I think you missed my point, in that the audition for these professions are under very different conditions than what you'll actually be doing "on the job" (one of the bigger complaints with whiteboarding seems to be that it doesn't closely mirror the actual work). > Interviewing an illustrator, a graphic designer, a writer, or an architect generally involves looking through a past portfolio of work with the interviewee That'd be fine if the point of the technical interview was to determine they know how to write code, but it's not IMO. As I mentioned above it's to determine they're capable of problem solving, because that is the important part of what we do (you should also obviously make sure a candidate knows how to code before you hire them, but that's the point of the phone screen).

learc83 8y ago
>Movie actors never perform in front of an audience, TV actors usually don't perform in front of an audience, studio musicians rarely perform in front of an audience - these professions have auditions This is only true for an extremely limited definition of audience. Movie actors most certainly perform in front of an audience. There are hundreds of people on the set. Even a small indie film has a few dozen people on set. It's the same for TV actors. Studio musicians also have plenty of people watching over their shoulders while they perform, and they're expected to be able to do so on the spot without preparation. >As I mentioned above it's to determine they're capable of problem solving, because that is the important part of what we do That's the important part of nearly everyone's job. Architects, graphic designers, engineers, sales people, mechanics, plumbers. There's nothing special about programming in this regard. We've just convinced ourselves that our industry is so special that of course we need weird hazing rituals. Everyone else seems to get along fine without treating people from new college grads to programmers with 20 years of experience like this is their first job. Can you solve this artificial problem that I already know the answer to right now in this time boxed, needlessly adversarial situation situation while I watch over your shoulder and critique you?
- frostmatthew 8y ago
  It's a bit odd you responded to various parts of my comment but not the "But more importantly I think you missed my point..." portion (i.e. kind of silly for us to debate this audience straw man) > That's the important part of nearly everyone's job. Architects, graphic designers, engineers, sales people, mechanics, plumbers. Communication, like problem solving, is likewise an important part of nearly everyone's job, but the importance of good communication skills (as valuable as they are) are much less important to being a good software engineer or good plumber than they are to being a good reporter or trial lawyer or public relations professional. I'm guessing, like most developers, this is your first/only profession - but it's not mine (I switched careers in my early 30s), and I can assure you not every job requires the level of problem solving we deal with on a regular basis (and no, that doesn't make us "so special", not all jobs are identical, some have more or less value in different areas, but one is not more special than another because of the importance of problem solving or communication or empathy or creativity or anything else).
  - learc83 8y ago
    >It's a bit odd you responded to various parts of my comment but not the "But more importantly I think you missed my point..." portion (i.e. kind of silly for us to debate this audience straw man) Your argument was that almost all creative professions have auditions similar to whiteboard interviews. I pointed out that that's not true because it's only true for performance artists. You then took the discussion off topic by arguing that movie stars aren't performing in front of audiences. Actors are expected to perform in front of an audience, programmers aren't. The ability to perform in front of an audience is difficult and rare, and is completely orthogonal to the skills required to work day to day as a programmer. Whiteboard interviews are just too far removed from anything resembling actual programming to be a work sample test. At best you're administering an ad hoc IQ test, but then you're adding an adversarial public performance aspect for no good reason. That adversarial public performance aspect is the biggest single difference between whiteboard interviews and real programming work--it's a much bigger difference than the difference between acting auditions and acting day to day. >I'm guessing, like most developers, this is your first/only profession I also switched careers after years in another field. > not every job requires the level of problem solving we deal with on a regular basis This is true. But having worked on the embedded systems side of hardware, there are many professions that do require at least the level of problem solving that programming does. EEs (the majority of whom don't have any kind of certification unless they're working in power systems), computer engineers, and even embedded developers don't routinely go through the kinds of whiteboard problem solving tests that you're talking about. Engineers working on real time, safety critical systems are hired every day without a Google style 6 person interview interview. The key differences are that these companies aren't trying to cargo cult the Google interview process, they don't have engineers a year or two out of college conducting the interviews, and they aren't paralyzed by the fear of unqualified candidates slipping through. I spend a lot of time on (capital E) Engineering forums. You don't see people on those forums complaining about the industry standard interview. You don't see flame wars started every time someone even mentions interviews. I've never heard of an EE with 20 years experience being asked to solve pet problems by a 22 year old new grad. And I've never heard of an EE spending months practicing for an interview. Clearly our interview process is broken. Perhaps it's time to look at similar industries and spend some time trying to figure out if we are really so different instead of insisting that programming is so uniquely challenging that it requires such a controversial interview process.

learc83 8y ago

>Movie actors never perform in front of an audience, TV actors usually don't perform in front of an audience, studio musicians rarely perform in front of an audience - these professions have auditions This is only true for an extremely limited definition of audience. Movie actors most certainly perform in front of an audience. There are hundreds of people on the set. Even a small indie film has a few dozen people on set. It's the same for TV actors. Studio musicians also have plenty of people watching over their shoulders while they perform, and they're expected to be able to do so on the spot without preparation. >As I mentioned above it's to determine they're capable of problem solving, because that is the important part of what we do That's the important part of nearly everyone's job. Architects, graphic designers, engineers, sales people, mechanics, plumbers. There's nothing special about programming in this regard. We've just convinced ourselves that our industry is so special that of course we need weird hazing rituals. Everyone else seems to get along fine without treating people from new college grads to programmers with 20 years of experience like this is their first job. Can you solve this artificial problem that I already know the answer to right now in this time boxed, needlessly adversarial situation situation while I watch over your shoulder and critique you?

frostmatthew 8y ago
It's a bit odd you responded to various parts of my comment but not the "But more importantly I think you missed my point..." portion (i.e. kind of silly for us to debate this audience straw man) > That's the important part of nearly everyone's job. Architects, graphic designers, engineers, sales people, mechanics, plumbers. Communication, like problem solving, is likewise an important part of nearly everyone's job, but the importance of good communication skills (as valuable as they are) are much less important to being a good software engineer or good plumber than they are to being a good reporter or trial lawyer or public relations professional. I'm guessing, like most developers, this is your first/only profession - but it's not mine (I switched careers in my early 30s), and I can assure you not every job requires the level of problem solving we deal with on a regular basis (and no, that doesn't make us "so special", not all jobs are identical, some have more or less value in different areas, but one is not more special than another because of the importance of problem solving or communication or empathy or creativity or anything else).
- learc83 8y ago
  >It's a bit odd you responded to various parts of my comment but not the "But more importantly I think you missed my point..." portion (i.e. kind of silly for us to debate this audience straw man) Your argument was that almost all creative professions have auditions similar to whiteboard interviews. I pointed out that that's not true because it's only true for performance artists. You then took the discussion off topic by arguing that movie stars aren't performing in front of audiences. Actors are expected to perform in front of an audience, programmers aren't. The ability to perform in front of an audience is difficult and rare, and is completely orthogonal to the skills required to work day to day as a programmer. Whiteboard interviews are just too far removed from anything resembling actual programming to be a work sample test. At best you're administering an ad hoc IQ test, but then you're adding an adversarial public performance aspect for no good reason. That adversarial public performance aspect is the biggest single difference between whiteboard interviews and real programming work--it's a much bigger difference than the difference between acting auditions and acting day to day. >I'm guessing, like most developers, this is your first/only profession I also switched careers after years in another field. > not every job requires the level of problem solving we deal with on a regular basis This is true. But having worked on the embedded systems side of hardware, there are many professions that do require at least the level of problem solving that programming does. EEs (the majority of whom don't have any kind of certification unless they're working in power systems), computer engineers, and even embedded developers don't routinely go through the kinds of whiteboard problem solving tests that you're talking about. Engineers working on real time, safety critical systems are hired every day without a Google style 6 person interview interview. The key differences are that these companies aren't trying to cargo cult the Google interview process, they don't have engineers a year or two out of college conducting the interviews, and they aren't paralyzed by the fear of unqualified candidates slipping through. I spend a lot of time on (capital E) Engineering forums. You don't see people on those forums complaining about the industry standard interview. You don't see flame wars started every time someone even mentions interviews. I've never heard of an EE with 20 years experience being asked to solve pet problems by a 22 year old new grad. And I've never heard of an EE spending months practicing for an interview. Clearly our interview process is broken. Perhaps it's time to look at similar industries and spend some time trying to figure out if we are really so different instead of insisting that programming is so uniquely challenging that it requires such a controversial interview process.