6 ms·

So, there's a hidden value to these sorts of questions, but it is useful to the interviewee, not the interviewer. If they use lots of these questions, you prob

So, there's a hidden value to these sorts of questions, but it is useful to the interviewee, not the interviewer. If they use lots of these questions, you probably don't want to work there, or at least not for the person who's asking those questions.

welcome_dragon 8y ago
I disagree, as long as getting the right answer isn't important. I flat out tell people I don't care if they get the right answer, that I just want to hear their thought process. Such questions used in this way are extremely valuable.
- athenot 8y ago
  I do the same thing. It's how the thought process works that's interesting, not the result. There is no problem or teaser whose answer is both short enough to be devised during an interview AND is representative of how a candidate would perform in real projects. Our field deals with complex systems in many dimensions. Instead, looking for how a candidate approaches a problem, do they just go for the obvious solutions, how creative will they go, any experience they can draw on, how well they overcome unknowns, etc.
  - gaius 8y ago
    It's how the thought process works that's interesting, not the result. I wonder how many interviewers have the necessary background in clinical psychiatry to analyze a candidate's thought process, or if that's just more handwaving away hazing.
- nomel 8y ago
  I think a good compromise is to modify the questions so it's actually applicable to the context of the job.
- sidlls 8y ago
  They're valuable for what? Showing off a thought process in a high pressure one hour meeting with a judge watching you?
  - logifail 8y ago
    If the candidate is applying for a job which will require the ability come up with solutions to new and/or difficult problems while under pressure, sure. Why wouldn't the prospective employer want to explore that at interview?
hinkley 8y ago
I’ve been toying with the idea of stopping these sorts of interviews in the middle, but I’m not sure how to phrase it constructively. I want to suggest that while they may learn more about me if we continue, if I don’t learn more about them then I don’t want to work here. And they will learn more about me by letting me ask my questions. Long ago nobody knew how to interview. If you derailed it in the middle to talk about more interesting things they were almost grateful. And I would frequently get an offer. Now everyone thinks they know how to interview even though we agree as a group that we don’t. So they show up to an hour meeting with an hour agenda and I spend half the time wondering if this question means they’re code cowboys or insane. So then I’m wondering if I’m throwing the interview to get out of laughing at them when they make an offer. I’d like to go back to grilling hen about their development practices and their roadmap and how I might be able to help or fit in. Please.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  I sympathize with the temptation, but I try to keep a good attitude towards the interviewer(s) until it's over, and draw conclusions afterwards. My comment above might suggest otherwise, but in reality I mostly analyze later, after I've left.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  Most places advertise pretty loudly in the careers section or in the interview prep material they send to you beforehand that you are going to be hazed. Amazon and Google both send out preparation packets after a phone screen that made me laugh out loud.
throwawaymath 8y ago
I don't think your second sentence is a good conclusion to draw. If nothing else, it's very difficult to find companies which will offer the highest compensation packages (or better) without also asking these questions. You're going to come across these questions no matter which of FAANG you apply to; the same applies to hedge funds. We're not talking about tens of thousands here, either. The top companies have packages which (including liquid RSUs) involve low hundreds of thousands more in compensation. Not everyone is optimizing their career for income maximization, but if you are it's hard to do so without being at one of these companies. On another note I've found that, at least in my experience, there is basically no correlation between whether or not people ask brainteasers/trivia in interviews and how competent they are or nice to work with. There probably aren't any interesting conclusions you can draw about personality based on interview formats without being biased in one direction or the other.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  But your experience, combined with the article in question, would suggest that "narcissism", "sadism", and "callousness" would be rampant at FAANG and hedge funds; surely that can't be right. Or...? I would not actually use this one criterion to disqualify a prospective employer, but for the record I would gladly give up a good chunk of my salary to work for one without those traits. It's not like you would have to work for pennies. In Austin, anyway, I have held contracts at a dozen different employers and not one used these kinds of questions in the interview.

welcome_dragon 8y ago

I disagree, as long as getting the right answer isn't important. I flat out tell people I don't care if they get the right answer, that I just want to hear their thought process. Such questions used in this way are extremely valuable.

athenot 8y ago
I do the same thing. It's how the thought process works that's interesting, not the result. There is no problem or teaser whose answer is both short enough to be devised during an interview AND is representative of how a candidate would perform in real projects. Our field deals with complex systems in many dimensions. Instead, looking for how a candidate approaches a problem, do they just go for the obvious solutions, how creative will they go, any experience they can draw on, how well they overcome unknowns, etc.
- gaius 8y ago
  It's how the thought process works that's interesting, not the result. I wonder how many interviewers have the necessary background in clinical psychiatry to analyze a candidate's thought process, or if that's just more handwaving away hazing.
nomel 8y ago
I think a good compromise is to modify the questions so it's actually applicable to the context of the job.
sidlls 8y ago
They're valuable for what? Showing off a thought process in a high pressure one hour meeting with a judge watching you?
- logifail 8y ago
  If the candidate is applying for a job which will require the ability come up with solutions to new and/or difficult problems while under pressure, sure. Why wouldn't the prospective employer want to explore that at interview?

hinkley 8y ago

I’ve been toying with the idea of stopping these sorts of interviews in the middle, but I’m not sure how to phrase it constructively. I want to suggest that while they may learn more about me if we continue, if I don’t learn more about them then I don’t want to work here. And they will learn more about me by letting me ask my questions. Long ago nobody knew how to interview. If you derailed it in the middle to talk about more interesting things they were almost grateful. And I would frequently get an offer. Now everyone thinks they know how to interview even though we agree as a group that we don’t. So they show up to an hour meeting with an hour agenda and I spend half the time wondering if this question means they’re code cowboys or insane. So then I’m wondering if I’m throwing the interview to get out of laughing at them when they make an offer. I’d like to go back to grilling hen about their development practices and their roadmap and how I might be able to help or fit in. Please.

rossdavidh 8y ago
I sympathize with the temptation, but I try to keep a good attitude towards the interviewer(s) until it's over, and draw conclusions afterwards. My comment above might suggest otherwise, but in reality I mostly analyze later, after I've left.
stevenwoo 8y ago
Most places advertise pretty loudly in the careers section or in the interview prep material they send to you beforehand that you are going to be hazed. Amazon and Google both send out preparation packets after a phone screen that made me laugh out loud.

throwawaymath 8y ago

I don't think your second sentence is a good conclusion to draw. If nothing else, it's very difficult to find companies which will offer the highest compensation packages (or better) without also asking these questions. You're going to come across these questions no matter which of FAANG you apply to; the same applies to hedge funds. We're not talking about tens of thousands here, either. The top companies have packages which (including liquid RSUs) involve low hundreds of thousands more in compensation. Not everyone is optimizing their career for income maximization, but if you are it's hard to do so without being at one of these companies. On another note I've found that, at least in my experience, there is basically no correlation between whether or not people ask brainteasers/trivia in interviews and how competent they are or nice to work with. There probably aren't any interesting conclusions you can draw about personality based on interview formats without being biased in one direction or the other.

rossdavidh 8y ago
But your experience, combined with the article in question, would suggest that "narcissism", "sadism", and "callousness" would be rampant at FAANG and hedge funds; surely that can't be right. Or...? I would not actually use this one criterion to disqualify a prospective employer, but for the record I would gladly give up a good chunk of my salary to work for one without those traits. It's not like you would have to work for pennies. In Austin, anyway, I have held contracts at a dozen different employers and not one used these kinds of questions in the interview.