3 ms·

I think FizzBuzz is an example, when I was interviewing I mostly got questions in this vein during first or second telephone screen (some companies use an onlin

by yoz-y 7y ago

I think FizzBuzz is an example, when I was interviewing I mostly got questions in this vein during first or second telephone screen (some companies use an online multiplayer notepad or some other method). When I was doing interviews I was always mostly discussing motivation. Most of the time the hires turned out very good, but I did happen to have one bad one and it cost us quite some time.

perl4ever 7y ago
I have had the experience of doing well on the programming test at the beginning of the process and being rejected for other reasons. Maybe counter-intuitively, that made me less interested in doing such tests, since in that case it wasn't determinative. It's possible that many or most places feel that to ensure someone doesn't cheat on a take-home, they must demonstrate their ability in the in-person interview. Which is logical, but it also makes me think that going through a process starting with a take-home is a waste of my time, as long as it's not a universal requirement.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  What you describe is normal. Assignments usually go from easy to hard because usually it is faster to solve the easy problems and usually these questions can be also asked by less technical people. Several companies I have interviewed with had the first programming questions asked by recruiters (who clearly had CS background, but most probably just shifted careers)
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    What I'm talking about had a much more involved test than Fizzbuzz at the beginning, IIRC something like 5 small projects, but with your choice of language, and a generous amount of time (days). During the interview, it was simpler, but in an environment I'd never used before and a language which I had disclosed up front I didn't have recent experience in. It seemed like they were only interested in hiring new college grads at the end, but perversely the process started by senior people referring me and screening me. While I admit it sounds like sour grapes, I thought later that the organization probably had communication/coordination problems that would've made it unpleasant to work for. In some organizations, they start by recruiting people they think have talent in general, and then the interview is about finding where you fit in. In others, they have a very specific need and they focus on winnowing down the pool to get the (hopefully) best person for it. The place I'm talking about seemed to have a split personality. Also, I've had enough interviews, both successful and unsuccessful, to be clear that there is no "normal". Every place is unique, as was this.

by yoz-y 7y ago

perl4ever 7y ago

I have had the experience of doing well on the programming test at the beginning of the process and being rejected for other reasons. Maybe counter-intuitively, that made me less interested in doing such tests, since in that case it wasn't determinative. It's possible that many or most places feel that to ensure someone doesn't cheat on a take-home, they must demonstrate their ability in the in-person interview. Which is logical, but it also makes me think that going through a process starting with a take-home is a waste of my time, as long as it's not a universal requirement.

yoz-y 7y ago
What you describe is normal. Assignments usually go from easy to hard because usually it is faster to solve the easy problems and usually these questions can be also asked by less technical people. Several companies I have interviewed with had the first programming questions asked by recruiters (who clearly had CS background, but most probably just shifted careers)
- perl4ever 7y ago
  What I'm talking about had a much more involved test than Fizzbuzz at the beginning, IIRC something like 5 small projects, but with your choice of language, and a generous amount of time (days). During the interview, it was simpler, but in an environment I'd never used before and a language which I had disclosed up front I didn't have recent experience in. It seemed like they were only interested in hiring new college grads at the end, but perversely the process started by senior people referring me and screening me. While I admit it sounds like sour grapes, I thought later that the organization probably had communication/coordination problems that would've made it unpleasant to work for. In some organizations, they start by recruiting people they think have talent in general, and then the interview is about finding where you fit in. In others, they have a very specific need and they focus on winnowing down the pool to get the (hopefully) best person for it. The place I'm talking about seemed to have a split personality. Also, I've had enough interviews, both successful and unsuccessful, to be clear that there is no "normal". Every place is unique, as was this.