4 ms·

Good engineering is important. But solving a problem on a whiteboard isn't "good engineering". The ability to solve whiteboard puzzles in a time boxed adversari

Good engineering is important. But solving a problem on a whiteboard isn't "good engineering". The ability to solve whiteboard puzzles in a time boxed adversarial setting, is nothing at all like solving large complex engineering problems through "good engineering" practices. I know plenty of capital E Engineers. None of them have whiteboard interviews. They are expected to solve problems, but none of them are expected to draw schematics for a bridge while someone watches over their shoulders. No other non-performance based industry has this kind of weird hazing ritual. Whiteboard interviews are nothing more than the current fad--they definitely aren't necessary requirements to hire "good engineers".

musicale 8y ago
^this. Somehow companies got confused into thinking that something between an algorithms test and an ICPC contest on a whiteboard was a sensible way to interview people. Google takes a similar approach with Code Jam (a recruiter contacted me because of it apparently.) At least they don't make you do Rubik's cubes anymore.
WilliamEdward 8y ago
Do you think the school system also isn't a good way to vet people, then? Since exams are basically just "whiteboard interviews".
- learc83 8y ago
  1. Unless you are in a performing arts program, exams aren't really anything like whiteboard interviews. They are much more limited in scope. You generally have more time. There's no one watching your every step. You don't have to talk while solving a problem. They tend to be written by people with at least some formal training in pedagogy. They don't tend to be written and administered by 24 year olds who are trying to prove how smart they are. Your job while in school is to study for exams, so you tend to have more time to do so. 2. This part is more important. School is about a lot more than exams. Projects were usually about 50% of the grade in CS classes. If you made it through 4 years of the CS program I went through, you know how to program, or you paid someone to go for you for all 4 years. So yeah I'd take a B average from my school as proof that you know how to program. But I wouldn't make it a requirement.

musicale 8y ago

^this. Somehow companies got confused into thinking that something between an algorithms test and an ICPC contest on a whiteboard was a sensible way to interview people. Google takes a similar approach with Code Jam (a recruiter contacted me because of it apparently.) At least they don't make you do Rubik's cubes anymore.

WilliamEdward 8y ago

Do you think the school system also isn't a good way to vet people, then? Since exams are basically just "whiteboard interviews".

learc83 8y ago
1. Unless you are in a performing arts program, exams aren't really anything like whiteboard interviews. They are much more limited in scope. You generally have more time. There's no one watching your every step. You don't have to talk while solving a problem. They tend to be written by people with at least some formal training in pedagogy. They don't tend to be written and administered by 24 year olds who are trying to prove how smart they are. Your job while in school is to study for exams, so you tend to have more time to do so. 2. This part is more important. School is about a lot more than exams. Projects were usually about 50% of the grade in CS classes. If you made it through 4 years of the CS program I went through, you know how to program, or you paid someone to go for you for all 4 years. So yeah I'd take a B average from my school as proof that you know how to program. But I wouldn't make it a requirement.