6 ms·

I was a naval officer in a prior life, and my current manager loves that I get the job done, whatever it is, without complaint. I'm pretty much the opposite of

I was a naval officer in a prior life, and my current manager loves that I get the job done, whatever it is, without complaint. I'm pretty much the opposite of what you think, so if my desire to study for the algorithm interview is your litmus test for that, kinda proves my point. Not everyone that would be good for Google has a burning desire to work for Google. Google might want to consider that.

warp_factor 8y ago
To make it clear, I absolutely hate coding interviews that makes candidate lose so much time restudying. I think having some critical-thinking is absolutely needed and way too many engineers lack some (especially those swallowed into FANGs) What I described on my previous post is a credible explanation that my group of engineer friends came up with on why all the FANG companies pursue those heavy memorization algorithmic interviews.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  To my mind, the more likely explanation is that they would simply get too many false positives if they didn't use the algorithm stuff to filter potential hires. You lose a lot of potentially good hires that way, but the pool you're left with are all of a certain intelligence level. Whereas, if you don't use the algorithm stuff to filter, it's really hard to figure out who is even intelligent enough to do the job.
  - vmasto 8y ago
    I'm not following, how does memorizing algorithms correlate with intelligence and skill in the engineering discipline of the job?
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      There's a correlation between the belief that memorizing algorithms correlates with intelligence and the application of algorithm questions in interviews.
    - taurath 8y ago
      Not so much intelligence but applied diligence on top of intelligence is my sense. If you want what they’re offering and don’t want to jump through their hoops for it then they don’t want you. For those that ball at the hoop jumping as being beneath them, there’s probably additional characteristics that comes with that that they’re trying to filter out.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Given that many job applicants apparently can't write a Fizz-Buzz implementation, I'd say that being able to implement an algorithm is probably a reasonable way to cull the herd by a hefty margin. https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/
      - x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
        It's made me angry how many people I've interviewed who can't manage Fizz Buzz with only 2 conditions or at all.
        rhizome 8y ago
        I'm kind of angry that I've never been asked to do it.
        devocracy 8y ago
        I'm curious to find out what people define as fizzbuzz, do you have a good example of something you've asked in the past?
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        Print numbers from 1 to 100, except print Fizz for numbers evenly divisible by 3, print Buzz for numbers evenly divisible by 5, and print FizzBuzz for numbers divisible by both 3 and 5.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    If they cared about intelligence they would just give IQ tests.
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      Which is illegal to do, hence proxy IQ tests.
      - bradleyjg 8y ago
        It is not illegal. Here’s Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/#tab-opinion-1949187 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/#tab-opi.... Go read it and see for yourself what it says.
        Izkata 8y ago
        Right at the top of that link: > Testing or measuring procedures cannot be determinative in employment decisions unless they have some connection to the job. IQ tests are not directly related to the job, and so are illegal according to that ruling. Coding tests are directly related, which is why they get a pass.
        bradleyjg 8y ago
        You didn’t read the opinion and you added the word “directly” to the summary. Do you scan source code and draw firm conclusions about what it does based on skim reading the first comment you see? Perhaps my old contracts prof could have a second career as a google interviewer. (He was notorious for cold calling people that hadn’t briefed their cases and eating them alive.)
        Izkata 8y ago
        The purpose of the "Primary Holding" section is to summarize the result, so that you don't have to dig through the whole thing.
  - doublekill 8y ago
    If you have two great engineers in a kitchen, discussing a relevant problem, you want there to be synergy. That synergy is broken when one of the engineers has to Google how to reverse a binary tree. It is also a safe place to work for the really exceptional engineers. They can talk freely about complex computer science, without getting blank stares or having to dumb it down. Otherwise it gets frustrating fast.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      CS is way too big for any individual to know it all in depth. If it really is a “safe place” because the employees can talk about complex topics without ever losing anyone, that would imply that they’re all specialized in roughly the same topics and severely lack organizational breadth. I kind of doubt that’s really true.
      - doublekill 8y ago
        You can have organizational breath with smaller teams. You pair a great programmer with an exceptional programmer and it helps if they are specialized in roughly the same topics.
        mikeash 8y ago
        How does that give you breadth?
        princeofwands 8y ago
        The teams specialize.
        mikeash 8y ago
        The other commenter was describing it as a “safe place” where you can talk about complex CS topics without confusing people. Unless your teams never talk to other teams, that doesn’t fit.
    - 8y ago
  - hibbelig 8y ago
    The article says that making the problems too hard results in a _worse_ selection, and not just more false negatives.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bitL 8y ago
  > my group of engineer friends came up with on why all the FANG companies pursue those heavy memorization algorithmic interviews I think the most likely explanation is that "elite" of CS grads usually do competitions like ACM ICPC and olympiads, which are full of problems like those watered-down interview questions. As there is no real authority on what makes a developer good, but there was a measurable outcome of those programming competitions, leading to high status and pride displayed by winners/participants, it was simply taken from there and dumbed down to fit into interviews. Some top colleges even have special prep courses for those competitions and comparing to them FANG interviews are super trivial.

warp_factor 8y ago

To make it clear, I absolutely hate coding interviews that makes candidate lose so much time restudying. I think having some critical-thinking is absolutely needed and way too many engineers lack some (especially those swallowed into FANGs) What I described on my previous post is a credible explanation that my group of engineer friends came up with on why all the FANG companies pursue those heavy memorization algorithmic interviews.

toasterlovin 8y ago
To my mind, the more likely explanation is that they would simply get too many false positives if they didn't use the algorithm stuff to filter potential hires. You lose a lot of potentially good hires that way, but the pool you're left with are all of a certain intelligence level. Whereas, if you don't use the algorithm stuff to filter, it's really hard to figure out who is even intelligent enough to do the job.
- vmasto 8y ago
  I'm not following, how does memorizing algorithms correlate with intelligence and skill in the engineering discipline of the job?
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    There's a correlation between the belief that memorizing algorithms correlates with intelligence and the application of algorithm questions in interviews.
  - taurath 8y ago
    Not so much intelligence but applied diligence on top of intelligence is my sense. If you want what they’re offering and don’t want to jump through their hoops for it then they don’t want you. For those that ball at the hoop jumping as being beneath them, there’s probably additional characteristics that comes with that that they’re trying to filter out.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Given that many job applicants apparently can't write a Fizz-Buzz implementation, I'd say that being able to implement an algorithm is probably a reasonable way to cull the herd by a hefty margin. https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/
    - x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
      It's made me angry how many people I've interviewed who can't manage Fizz Buzz with only 2 conditions or at all.
      - rhizome 8y ago
        I'm kind of angry that I've never been asked to do it.
      - devocracy 8y ago
        I'm curious to find out what people define as fizzbuzz, do you have a good example of something you've asked in the past?
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        Print numbers from 1 to 100, except print Fizz for numbers evenly divisible by 3, print Buzz for numbers evenly divisible by 5, and print FizzBuzz for numbers divisible by both 3 and 5.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  If they cared about intelligence they would just give IQ tests.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    Which is illegal to do, hence proxy IQ tests.
    - bradleyjg 8y ago
      It is not illegal. Here’s Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/#tab-opinion-1949187 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/#tab-opi.... Go read it and see for yourself what it says.
      - Izkata 8y ago
        Right at the top of that link: > Testing or measuring procedures cannot be determinative in employment decisions unless they have some connection to the job. IQ tests are not directly related to the job, and so are illegal according to that ruling. Coding tests are directly related, which is why they get a pass.
        bradleyjg 8y ago
        You didn’t read the opinion and you added the word “directly” to the summary. Do you scan source code and draw firm conclusions about what it does based on skim reading the first comment you see? Perhaps my old contracts prof could have a second career as a google interviewer. (He was notorious for cold calling people that hadn’t briefed their cases and eating them alive.)
        Izkata 8y ago
        The purpose of the "Primary Holding" section is to summarize the result, so that you don't have to dig through the whole thing.
- doublekill 8y ago
  If you have two great engineers in a kitchen, discussing a relevant problem, you want there to be synergy. That synergy is broken when one of the engineers has to Google how to reverse a binary tree. It is also a safe place to work for the really exceptional engineers. They can talk freely about complex computer science, without getting blank stares or having to dumb it down. Otherwise it gets frustrating fast.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    CS is way too big for any individual to know it all in depth. If it really is a “safe place” because the employees can talk about complex topics without ever losing anyone, that would imply that they’re all specialized in roughly the same topics and severely lack organizational breadth. I kind of doubt that’s really true.
    - doublekill 8y ago
      You can have organizational breath with smaller teams. You pair a great programmer with an exceptional programmer and it helps if they are specialized in roughly the same topics.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        How does that give you breadth?
        princeofwands 8y ago
        The teams specialize.
        mikeash 8y ago
        The other commenter was describing it as a “safe place” where you can talk about complex CS topics without confusing people. Unless your teams never talk to other teams, that doesn’t fit.
  - 8y ago
- hibbelig 8y ago
  The article says that making the problems too hard results in a _worse_ selection, and not just more false negatives.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bitL 8y ago
> my group of engineer friends came up with on why all the FANG companies pursue those heavy memorization algorithmic interviews I think the most likely explanation is that "elite" of CS grads usually do competitions like ACM ICPC and olympiads, which are full of problems like those watered-down interview questions. As there is no real authority on what makes a developer good, but there was a measurable outcome of those programming competitions, leading to high status and pride displayed by winners/participants, it was simply taken from there and dumbed down to fit into interviews. Some top colleges even have special prep courses for those competitions and comparing to them FANG interviews are super trivial.