3 ms·
>It is sad that interviews in tech have been reduced to a process that resembles SAT-esque entrance exams. And now, there's an entire industry around prepping c
by ummonk 8y ago
>It is sad that interviews in tech have been reduced to a process that resembles SAT-esque entrance exams. And now, there's an entire industry around prepping candidates for the interviews.
I'm not sure why that is bad. The more standardized the interview process is, the more consistently people can prepare for interviews and know what to expect. The interview process doesn't have to represent actual work, as long as preparing for and performing well on the interview requires the same skills used to learn and work with a new software feature / language / problem.
>The premise was that it is simply not possible that most folks with X yrs of experience at a software shop are all secretly terrible that they can't get past your interview process.
That's an obviously false premise.
- ignoramous 8y ago> I'm not sure why that is bad. The more standardized the interview process is, the more consistently people can prepare for interviews and know what to expect. Yep, agree. You tend to then hire folks who are good at interviewing and not at getting the job done. I think there is no right answer but multiple right answers. Provide three or four different interview loops and let the candidate choose which one they want to opt for: for instance, one loop is the standard algorithms/data-structure, the other loop is a take-home problem, the third could be tptacek-style, the fourth could be stripe-style, and so on... > That's an obviously false premise. Sorry, I didn't get. The article argues that obviously that many folks with that much amt of work experience can't all be secretly terrible that we continue to find it hard to hire and so the current interview process needs an overhaul.