4 ms·
> The problem is that there is almost no correlation between how candidates do in whiteboard interviews, and the ability to perform the job on a day to day basi
by blauditore 8y ago
> The problem is that there is almost no correlation between how candidates do in whiteboard interviews, and the ability to perform the job on a day to day basis.
What else would you use as metric? Talking about technical topics?
In my experience, there are people good at talking about those things, but miserably failing at the actual job. Introducing simple whiteboard programming tasks in addition has helped weeding those out and dramatically improved hiring success.
- vfc1 8y agoThere are some very solid alternatives to this current system, which lets face it some of things that they make you do in an interview are borderline ridiculous and its a matter of lucj more than anything else. For the technical part, I would as screening value forms of unforgeable proof of technical competence, such as Github profiles, meaningful open source contributions, stackoverflow contributions. Next for the technical part, a homework assignment. Homework is much more close to the real world experience: get a task and would you have to figure it out. Then the technical interview would be to explain the homework. There the only goal is really to confirm that the person did the homework themselves rather than anything else. For the behavioral part, a full battery of psychological tests, to weed out psychopathic traits mostly. There are alternatives, the current interviewing system is not a good solution.
- stale2002 8y agoSure, give someone a problem slightly harder than fizz buzz just to make sure they aren't a complete fraud. But the difference between someone who can solve an easy whiteboarding problem and a hard one is merely the fact that they practiced for months doing it. It is unlikely that solving the hard problem is much of a signal other then that.