4 ms·

I agree that the candidate should be able to demonstrate ability to write code, but I'm surprised that the author is unable to find interesting, short, diagnost

by MarkMc 7y ago

I agree that the candidate should be able to demonstrate ability to write code, but I'm surprised that the author is unable to find interesting, short, diagnostically useful problems that crop up in the course of his day-to-day programming. Often when writing code I think, "hmm, this problem would make a good interview question" so I keep a note of it. Here's a recent example from an accounting program where I was reporting debit and credit transactions: Given a list of integers, remove all pairs where the magnitude is the same but opposite sign. Eg. given [-1, 4, 6, 1, -2, -4, 4], the result should be [6, -2, 4]. For more in-depth assessment, the author dismisses the idea of asking the candidate to do an all-day task or homework because it isn't respectful of the candidate's time. So why not just pay the candidate for that time?

cbzoiav 7y ago
> So why not just pay the candidate for that time? If i'm working full time I probably don't want to give you my entire weekend unless you pay me silly money. Meanwhile - at least in the UK - if I'm earning under £100,000 I might well have to fill in a self assessment solely because of your payment (I can't see you onboarding me onto your PAYE system for 8 hours of interview work). Its just not worth the hassle.
edanm 7y ago
The example question you give is exactly the type of "algorithmic" question people complain about, and that the article says is the only kind of question you can realistically ask. And for the same reasons. > For more in-depth assessment, the author dismisses the idea of asking the candidate to do an all-day task or homework because it isn't respectful of the candidate's time. So why not just pay the candidate for that time? First of all, it costs money. Significant money even, if you tend to interview a lot of people. Secondly, it's often an accounting hassle to pay money - you can't just hand someone cash, it needs to be in the form of a salary, and is not always so easy to do (and some candidates would probably be put off by it, especially if they're already working, since having a second income can get complicated).

by MarkMc 7y ago

cbzoiav 7y ago

> So why not just pay the candidate for that time? If i'm working full time I probably don't want to give you my entire weekend unless you pay me silly money. Meanwhile - at least in the UK - if I'm earning under £100,000 I might well have to fill in a self assessment solely because of your payment (I can't see you onboarding me onto your PAYE system for 8 hours of interview work). Its just not worth the hassle.

edanm 7y ago

The example question you give is exactly the type of "algorithmic" question people complain about, and that the article says is the only kind of question you can realistically ask. And for the same reasons. > For more in-depth assessment, the author dismisses the idea of asking the candidate to do an all-day task or homework because it isn't respectful of the candidate's time. So why not just pay the candidate for that time? First of all, it costs money. Significant money even, if you tend to interview a lot of people. Secondly, it's often an accounting hassle to pay money - you can't just hand someone cash, it needs to be in the form of a salary, and is not always so easy to do (and some candidates would probably be put off by it, especially if they're already working, since having a second income can get complicated).