12 ms·

I am a software engineer and I was once asked during an interview at a large hedge fund to pick a side and debate why war is justified. When I pressed them abo

• Loughla 7y ago
  How is that even remotely related to the job at hand? Why would you sabotage possible good candidates just so you can get your needless debate rocks off?
  • stronglikedan 7y ago
    Same reason why some would sabotage possible good candidates just because they never wondered how a toilet works. People are weird.
  • pxue 7y ago
    Because you're joining a team and should be a good fit beyond technical expertise. I would be very happy to have answered that question and would be a plus one in my books if I can have these types of heated talks with my coworkers.
    • Loughla 7y ago
      Non-baited statement (and I'm aware it's discussed a lot here), but my experience with people saying the candidate wouldn't be a good 'fit' was just a way to enforce bias either unconsciously or consciously. And led to problems with group-think and an inability to think in different ways. Now granted my hiring sample is less than 100, but that has been my experience so far.
      • PorterDuff 7y ago
        As a serious question, why do you think that dissimilar groups product faster or higher quality work? How far can you take that concept? Should they even speak the same language?
        • jimcsharp 7y ago
          It probably makes it easier to act like a professional. If you reduce the social gel at work, perhaps more work gets done. Maybe I've gained a morning of productivity today because a conversation didn't devolve into a Simpsons quote-athon.
        • Loughla 7y ago
          Dissimilar groups produce higher quality work, in my opinion and experience. It takes longer, because of the discussion that needs to happen. But, again in my experience, quality of product is far more important than speed of production. If I worked on a factory line making widgets, maybe this would change. But the quality of the outcome, again in my experience, is higher for groups that are dissimilar overall in background and viewpoints. Teams structured in this way are able to view things from different angles. They are able to challenge each other in ways that groups from similar backgrounds with similar view are simply not able to even think of. >How far can I take the concept? What does that matter? Honestly? >Should they even speak the same language? It's helpful? What does this have to do with 'fit' actually being current business manager code for 'implicit bias'? And my point wasn't that dissimilar groups work better; my point was that looking for 'fit' is just a way for groups to embrace their own biases about 'insert trait here' without feeling guilty, and leads, in my opinion and experience, to groupthink and circlejerky ideas. My experience has taught me that any business more concerned with fit is not a place for me. I have yet to be challenged intellectually anywhere that 'fit' has been part of the interview process.
      • JudgeWapner 7y ago
        why should the candidate just apply for software engineering jobs? Isn't focusing on one field just enforcing their bias to a particular industry? Shouldn't we enforce basic rules that candidates apply to a diverse gamut of other jobs, such as truck driving, painting, and customer service? And shouldn't we shame them if they decline an offer for a labor job by calling out their biases? Shouldn't we require candidates to apply to more than one company? I mean, if they focused on one company at a time, that clearly enforces their bias (either unconsciously or consiously). How are we going to contain this blatant bias in job applicants?
  • geofft 7y ago
    Misaligned incentives: the people doing interviews have such indirect financial incentive to hire the right people (only that a good/bad hire affects the company's profit, which affects their own salary/stock), almost no way of telling if they made a bad hire decision, and definitely no way of telling if they made a bad no-hire decision. Remember Alan Greenspan's story of finding a competitive advantage because everyone else was happy to ignore half the population in hiring. If you have no direct incentive aligned with the business's needs, then the incentive of "I will derive pleasure from the interview process" (whether it's having a fun conversation, or having a conversation that makes you feel powerful / more confident about yourself, or hiring in a way that reinforces your existing biases) is all that remains.
    • airstrike 7y ago
      > Alan Greenspan's story of finding a competitive advantage because everyone else was happy to ignore half the population in hiring Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I've never heard of that. Would you mind sharing a link?
      • geofft 7y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/business/the-quiet-allure-of-alan-greenspan.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/05/business/the-quiet-allure... > Though David Rowe, a veteran architect of the Wharton forecasting model, has played a key role in developing the firm's econometric model, the senior staff, including Miss Eickhoff, Judith Mackey and Lucille Wu, is mostly female. Mr. Greenspan explains the gender bias with the free-market pragmatism that has become his hallmark: "I always valued men and women equally, and I found that because others did not, good women economists were cheaper than men. Hiring women does two things: It gives us better quality work for less money, and it raises the market value of women." That is, just a few decades ago, the leading economic consulting firms in the world—economists!—were regularly overpaying men because they didn't want to hire equally capable women, such that Greenspan could find an obvious mispricing in the labor market. Imagine how much more poorly people who are not economists and not owners of their firm must be making hiring decisions on much less blatant biases than gender.
  • toyg 7y ago
    > How is that even remotely related to the job at hand? It is not. But they cannot ask you "did you vote for party X? Because everyone here votes for party X and it would be awkward to have someone with Y sensibilities", that would be discriminating.
    • meddlepal 7y ago
      Political affiliation is not a protected class in federal law so you could ask that... though state law might prevent it.
      • nsxwolf 7y ago
        It's perfectly legal to discriminate against the candidate for this but also perfectly legal for the candidate to talk to the media about it.
  • HillRat 7y ago
    It would actually be a pretty good way to see if a candidate can be persuasive, logical, able to acknowledge opposing points of view, and capable of divorcing argument from emotion on heated topics. Pretty crucial skills in the workplace!
    • Loughla 7y ago
      But the problem is, that's not how it's presented. The OP stated that it was because they enjoyed having spirited debates and wanted to make sure the interviewee can hold their own (my words, not OP). If the purpose is to do what you say, then you have to say that. If in an interview you find yourself trying to trick the people interviewing, for any reason whatsoever, you're not clever, you're a dick and your company, by extension, is a bag of dicks.
• jcadam 7y ago
  > I am a software engineer and I was once asked during an interview at a large hedge fund to pick a side and debate why war is justified. Heh, I actually wouldn't have minded that too much - but in addition to being a software engineer I'm also a former Army officer. In any case, I think such a task can be relevant, if you're working in a fast-paced and competitive environment (esp. one with a lot of non-technical staff) you need to be able to hold your own in an argument. You wouldn't want to be the guy who is always right but gets overruled 99% of the time because you're unable to persuade others. > ...but socio-ethical problems are way outside of my wheelhouse. Mine too, and probably 99%+ of the world's population. But that doesn't stop most people from having strong opinions on subjects they don't understand.
  • tasty_freeze 7y ago
    > you need to be able to hold your own in an argument Then you'll hire a bunch people who like arguing about things they aren't qualified to argue about. I'd much rather have a coworker who admits what they don't know and is willing to learn about it rather than someone who is willing to vigorously argue in support of an arbitrary position.
    • DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
      Great point, but I could imagine this being a test for many different traits. One might be that the interviewee would be entertaining to argue with. It's anyone's guess what really motivated the interview topic.
  • rich_ard 7y ago
    Not clear on how showing that you're willing to argue a position that you don't have any background or evidence to support is a positive.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • ska 7y ago
• justbaker 7y ago
  > ...but socio-ethical problems are way outside of my wheelhouse. Ever more reason to go outside ones comfort zone.
• conanbatt 7y ago
  What a "culture fit" filter that looks like
  • Supermighty 7y ago
    Usually it's just an interviewer's gut feeling. I don't believe there is a formal set of criteria that is used as a filter.
• gwbas1c 7y ago
  I would think that's completely relevant for a hedge fund. They probably need to debate investments like this all the time.
  • eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    debate investments in weapons manufacturers...
• dentemple 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure they were to trying to get a sense of your political leanings, without actually saying so.
• agrippanux 7y ago
  When interviewing execs who would be building new departments a few years ago, I would pose the question of "In the wake of Arab spring in Libya, the people decide that you are their next leader. What happens in your first 100 days?". The answers ran the gamut from lazy to fantastic to terrifying. A lot of answers where generic "coalition building" variety. The better answers identified key areas to focus on like infrastructure, basic services, etc. The best answers had clear goals and possible government structures supporting accountability. Bad answers had the exec consolidating power and crushing opposition. The worst answers had the exec killing people to achieve their goals. Not joking, I had several answers that where "I would find my rivals and kill them". Overall I thought it was a good question as those who performed well on it and where hired built great sustainable orgs and those who did poorly where usually shown the door within a year. Those who did well where able to take a crazy situation, break it down into smaller problems, and then solve for them while those who did poorly where usually relying either escaping the problem via committees or flat out crushing opposition.
  • charlesdm 7y ago
    Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I don't like this question because you know there is a politically correct answer and then an actual course of action people would take. The proper answer is: introduce democratic government, clean up the country, introduce proper amenities (healthcare, etc) and spread the wealth for the benefit of the people. Fact of the matter is: absolute power corrupts, and plenty of people would loot the oil money reserves for their own benefit if they had the chance. Just have a look at what happens in Russia.
    • throwaway552231 7y ago
      Has it ever worked in that order? It seems like most current democratic countries first cleaned up the country and then introduced a democratic government. I’m thinking of recent democratic countries in Asia, like South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Or if they did start with a democratic government, to limit the voting to certain groups, like the US, Canada, and Australia did before universal suffrage. Are there any successful countries that haven’t “cleaned up” first but introduced universal democracy?
• hguant 7y ago
  Sounds like they've bought into the Heinlein/Rand general specialist myth (quote below) and were looking for that. Problem is, it's very easy to mistake lunatic confidence for competence, especially in an interview, and especially given the personality traits that work well in hedge funds/general finance. >“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
  • onychomys 7y ago
    Well, for insects and also for naked mole rats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat#Roles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat#Roles
  • swordsmith 7y ago
    Regarding the quote -- most of these skills are pretty general though.
    • falsedan 7y ago
      how many of them did you exercise in the last 6 months/5 years I'm 5/7 out of 22, +2 if I go back a decade or two
      • mattbk1 7y ago
        Getting 100% on that list and then posting here would be a trick.
      • qes 7y ago
        6 months seems too short, but in 5 years the only ones I haven't done are plan an invasion (how many people out of billions have?), butcher a hog specifically (fish though), design a whole building (designed and built a.. room.. for purposes.. no small or simple task), written a sonnet specifically (other creative writing), set a bone, pitch manure (bagged it, also bailed hay, grew food, etc.), fight physically, or die - gallantly or otherwise. So that's 4 I definitely haven't done, 4 I kinda did, and 13 I definitely did (I count 21 total not 22).
• officehero 7y ago
  The correct answer in this case is of course YES, it's justified. It's a hedge fund after all. Motivate with evolutionary theory starting with Darwin and ending with Nietzsche, maybe even bring in Sun Tzu depending on interviewer.
• yumraj 7y ago
  I love that question, and may use it, or a variant, in one of my future interviews. My reasoning: I would like my team members to be able to contribute in all aspects of product development. This includes not only engineering decisions but also work with the product managers in identifying both potential new features as well as short comings or issues with some requirements. It also tells me how narrow or broad a particular person's knowledge base is. Let me try to put it in other words: it may tell me if a particular frontend engineer would be open to exploring backend development? What if the language stack changes, will they be open to exploring new languages, stacks, frameworks, OS, platforms. Or, will they be limited to what they know. Will they be able to just code what they're told, or will they be able to form and express their opinion about yet unknown things.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• starpilot 7y ago
  In all fairness, there have been so many articles about the craziness of that hedge fund, you should have known what you were getting into. Better to find that out in the interview.
• gav 7y ago
  > When I pressed them about the relevance, they indicated that they often have heated debates on all manner of topics, so they wanted to see my thought process. One of my favorite interviews was when I was posed the question: "you work for the railroad, we've just spent several months asking our customers how they feel about the service; the majority of them are unhappy, what do you do?". I spent an enjoyable hour in front of a whiteboard working on ideas with the interviewer.
• acomjean 7y ago
  Yeah. I had an interview with a 2 tests. One had a you check a list of personal attributes you see about yourself (diligent, careful, fun, approachable.....) Second side of paper, same list of terms “check all that others see you as”. Then a one hour paper coding type exam. I’ve also done a one hour codility online coding test more recently. I thought I’d hate it but frankly it’s wasnt over the top hard and kinda fun.
• robocat 7y ago
  They are simply stating one strong aspect of their workplace culture. You self-selected out, because you didn't like their culture. Seems like a great outcome for both parties!