5 ms·

As someone going through the shit gauntlet of coding interviews for junior dev positions, I would love this. I’m hardworking, tenacious, self motivated, etc. No

As someone going through the shit gauntlet of coding interviews for junior dev positions, I would love this. I’m hardworking, tenacious, self motivated, etc. None of this is communicated by having me implement binary search

x0x0 7y ago
Yes it is. I'm a hiring manager. It's not like we don't know that interviews are game-able. A candidate willing to put in the effort to game them is generally a good signal. We hire people out of code schools: 4 last year, and one of them is about to be promoted basically because she's good at everything. And for the record, we ask zero algorithms questions. Unfortunately, some graduates of code schools you've hard of can not code. Like at all. Hence I understand companies that resort to algo questions.
- gcatalfamo 7y ago
  Testing general coding ability is not demonstrated by asking to whiteboard very specific algorithms...a customized variant to fizz buzz applied to the coding field the company needs (frontend, backend, etc) can test that
  - x0x0 7y ago
    Those are often too easy. Whiteboard coding is stupid, but does show effort. That's valuable from junior employees. Also, I got in an argument, I think on this site, with someone who claimed that the modulus operator was not widely known. Not knowing that makes fizzbuzz classic much more complex. :shrug: Not every employee will work at every company.
    - jetti 7y ago
      I was interviewed a couple weeks back and given a FizzBuzz test. It started out normal, like the traditional FizzBuzz test, but then progressed past the "too easy" stage. They asked to design the program in a way that the rules were custom and the only rule that was always defined is that if all other rules don't match then the current number is printed. It wasn't difficult but it allowed for conversation as well as indicating deeper knowledge.
- protonimitate 7y ago
  > Unfortunately, some graduates of code schools you've hard of can not code. Like at all. Hence I understand companies that resort to algo questions. I'll agree with this. The issue, I think, is that too much emphasis is placed on the algo questions in relation to the other portions of an interview. I think the root cause of this is bad/lazy hiring practices. There's a difference between using an algo question to see if a person can code, versus using an algo question to stroke the interviewers ego and/or confirm biases. It's also an issue of companies not truly wanting to invest in junior talent. A lot of companies want to pay junior wages for experienced talent, and don't encourage a mentor/mentee/learning environment. Yes, I understand the fear that companies will invest time and money in junior talent just to have them jump ship for a pay raise in 8 months, but that cuts both ways. I'm willing to bet that companies that are willing to spend more on training/mentoring/yearly compensation bumps would retain talent for longer. To answer the OP question - I personally would not accept an easier hiring process for an easier firing process. I believe that would just exaggerate the problem above. At the end of the day, it comes down to ROI for both parties. Job seekers don't want to spend countless hours cramming for algo questions and being subjected to multiple-round interviews. Companies don't want to spend the time and money on hiring + onboarding to get to a point where a new hire produces value. You could argue that an apprenticeship model would help circumvent the problem, but that could mean significantly lowered entry-level salaries, and probably less interest from "top talent" in the junior market. Software is a strange case though. It's becoming just as ingrained in society as say, plumping or electricity, but the potential for revenue is much greater than traditional trade skills.
  - x0x0 7y ago
    the reason not to hire junior employees isn't the money. It's they're net negative productivity for at least 6 months if you include the senior eng time spent helping them. It's a hard calculus, and I 100% understand why a company would choose never to do that.
    - protonimitate 7y ago
      I'd argue that if a junior is net negative productivity for 6 months, either the onboarding process is not well enough defined and too drawn out, or the junior position being filled should really be for a senior.
- ibeckermayer 7y ago
  > A candidate willing to put in the effort to game them is generally a good signal. That's not necessarily true. In my experience, the most competent people aren't inclined to waste valuable time on frivolous bullshit. Via this system, you may be selecting for drones that only know how to do what they're told, at the expense of selecting for leadership qualities. I've been spending my time unemployed to build an online store for a friend and a Raspberry Pi based sensor/control system for a non-profit organization. Everything I've learned doing this is far more demonstrative of the applicable skills, motivation, etc. a company should be looking for than if I had spent the time memorizing algorithms. I've been sending the source code for these projects to companies in my applications, although I'm not sure if anybody is even looking at it let alone using it to evaluate my skills. Serious question: would you suggest I just "play the game" and work on practicing the types of questions some companies use in their process? Related, would you prefer to hire a candidate who spends their spare time "playing the game", or one who works on real applications like I do? I think the correct answer is obviously the latter, and hiring managers should take responsibility for developing a process that rewards genuine productivity and hands-on-learning over ultimately frivolous game-playing. I recognize this is much easier said than done and respect that your job is difficult. But it is a problem and problems get solved by those who recognize them as such and purposefully try to engineer a solution... > Unfortunately, some graduates of code schools you've hard of can not code. Like at all. Hence I understand companies that resort to algo questions. This is undoubtedly true. I completed a "code bootcamp" and can personally attest to the fact that some people are qualified for junior level roles, and some should choose another career path. No coding school is selective enough in their admissions to build a brand around quality.
solipsism 7y ago
None of this is communicated by having me implement binary search I'm curious how you're so sure of this as a not-yet-junior Dev.
- jetti 7y ago
  How does implementing a binary search show any of the qualitative attributes that were mentioned?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

x0x0 7y ago

Yes it is. I'm a hiring manager. It's not like we don't know that interviews are game-able. A candidate willing to put in the effort to game them is generally a good signal. We hire people out of code schools: 4 last year, and one of them is about to be promoted basically because she's good at everything. And for the record, we ask zero algorithms questions. Unfortunately, some graduates of code schools you've hard of can not code. Like at all. Hence I understand companies that resort to algo questions.

gcatalfamo 7y ago
Testing general coding ability is not demonstrated by asking to whiteboard very specific algorithms...a customized variant to fizz buzz applied to the coding field the company needs (frontend, backend, etc) can test that
- x0x0 7y ago
  Those are often too easy. Whiteboard coding is stupid, but does show effort. That's valuable from junior employees. Also, I got in an argument, I think on this site, with someone who claimed that the modulus operator was not widely known. Not knowing that makes fizzbuzz classic much more complex. :shrug: Not every employee will work at every company.
  - jetti 7y ago
    I was interviewed a couple weeks back and given a FizzBuzz test. It started out normal, like the traditional FizzBuzz test, but then progressed past the "too easy" stage. They asked to design the program in a way that the rules were custom and the only rule that was always defined is that if all other rules don't match then the current number is printed. It wasn't difficult but it allowed for conversation as well as indicating deeper knowledge.
protonimitate 7y ago
> Unfortunately, some graduates of code schools you've hard of can not code. Like at all. Hence I understand companies that resort to algo questions. I'll agree with this. The issue, I think, is that too much emphasis is placed on the algo questions in relation to the other portions of an interview. I think the root cause of this is bad/lazy hiring practices. There's a difference between using an algo question to see if a person can code, versus using an algo question to stroke the interviewers ego and/or confirm biases. It's also an issue of companies not truly wanting to invest in junior talent. A lot of companies want to pay junior wages for experienced talent, and don't encourage a mentor/mentee/learning environment. Yes, I understand the fear that companies will invest time and money in junior talent just to have them jump ship for a pay raise in 8 months, but that cuts both ways. I'm willing to bet that companies that are willing to spend more on training/mentoring/yearly compensation bumps would retain talent for longer. To answer the OP question - I personally would not accept an easier hiring process for an easier firing process. I believe that would just exaggerate the problem above. At the end of the day, it comes down to ROI for both parties. Job seekers don't want to spend countless hours cramming for algo questions and being subjected to multiple-round interviews. Companies don't want to spend the time and money on hiring + onboarding to get to a point where a new hire produces value. You could argue that an apprenticeship model would help circumvent the problem, but that could mean significantly lowered entry-level salaries, and probably less interest from "top talent" in the junior market. Software is a strange case though. It's becoming just as ingrained in society as say, plumping or electricity, but the potential for revenue is much greater than traditional trade skills.
- x0x0 7y ago
  the reason not to hire junior employees isn't the money. It's they're net negative productivity for at least 6 months if you include the senior eng time spent helping them. It's a hard calculus, and I 100% understand why a company would choose never to do that.
  - protonimitate 7y ago
    I'd argue that if a junior is net negative productivity for 6 months, either the onboarding process is not well enough defined and too drawn out, or the junior position being filled should really be for a senior.
ibeckermayer 7y ago
> A candidate willing to put in the effort to game them is generally a good signal. That's not necessarily true. In my experience, the most competent people aren't inclined to waste valuable time on frivolous bullshit. Via this system, you may be selecting for drones that only know how to do what they're told, at the expense of selecting for leadership qualities. I've been spending my time unemployed to build an online store for a friend and a Raspberry Pi based sensor/control system for a non-profit organization. Everything I've learned doing this is far more demonstrative of the applicable skills, motivation, etc. a company should be looking for than if I had spent the time memorizing algorithms. I've been sending the source code for these projects to companies in my applications, although I'm not sure if anybody is even looking at it let alone using it to evaluate my skills. Serious question: would you suggest I just "play the game" and work on practicing the types of questions some companies use in their process? Related, would you prefer to hire a candidate who spends their spare time "playing the game", or one who works on real applications like I do? I think the correct answer is obviously the latter, and hiring managers should take responsibility for developing a process that rewards genuine productivity and hands-on-learning over ultimately frivolous game-playing. I recognize this is much easier said than done and respect that your job is difficult. But it is a problem and problems get solved by those who recognize them as such and purposefully try to engineer a solution... > Unfortunately, some graduates of code schools you've hard of can not code. Like at all. Hence I understand companies that resort to algo questions. This is undoubtedly true. I completed a "code bootcamp" and can personally attest to the fact that some people are qualified for junior level roles, and some should choose another career path. No coding school is selective enough in their admissions to build a brand around quality.

solipsism 7y ago

None of this is communicated by having me implement binary search I'm curious how you're so sure of this as a not-yet-junior Dev.

jetti 7y ago
How does implementing a binary search show any of the qualitative attributes that were mentioned?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]