4 ms·

Some of the more esoteric Leetcode medium/hard questions are ridiculous to ask someone who hasn't been specifically preparing for them, I agree, but I think it'

Some of the more esoteric Leetcode medium/hard questions are ridiculous to ask someone who hasn't been specifically preparing for them, I agree, but I think it's fair to ask Leetcode easy's where the algorithm itself is not complicated but demonstrates the interviewee understands complexity analysis, data structures, etc.

bit_logic 7y ago
Even with easy leetcode, there's still a lot of issues. If a company must do leetcode, it should be like this: * Both candidate and interviewer enter the room. * A small script randomly pulls a leetcode easy question from the website. * They both spend the next hour together working on a solution. I can already hear the objections from leetcode fanatics, things like I have to know the answer already so I can "calibrate" (basically see how fast they can regurgitate the rote memorized solution). A bullshit reason, so an engineer who solves something 1 minute faster than another is better? Or I need to always use the same question so I can compare candidates. Another bullshit reason, I thought it was about seeing how they reason about a problem, why do you need the same question for that? Whatever question you get, it should be clear if they're good at reasoning or not. The truth is, it's just a hazing ritual by insecure engineers who want to be the one with the one true answer they can use to feel better than the candidate. That's all it is and that's why I ignore companies with this kind of process.
- username90 7y ago
  Algorithm questions doesn't work well if you pull them from a public database, they need to be novel. If you get questions available on Leetcode then they are doing it wrong. > The truth is, it's just a hazing ritual by insecure engineers who want to be the one with the one true answer they can use to feel better than the candidate. It is not, I believe they are useful and have seen data showing that they are useful. The question I use was first used on me and I solved it completely in 20 minutes. I haven't had a single candidate solve it in 45 minutes, and I give them huge amounts of help. I give hire recommendation to those who makes a good attempt and doesn't start bullshitting. Lots of people starts spouting bullshit when they get questions they can't answer for some reason, I guess this kind is what you get if you use publicly available questions.
  - pavlov 7y ago
    > "The question I use was first used on me and I solved it completely in 20 minutes. I haven't had a single candidate solve it in 45 minutes, and I give them huge amounts of help." Honestly it sounds like you're proving GP poster's point here: these interview questions are administered by engineers who want to feel better than the candidate.
    - username90 7y ago
      These interview questions are administrated by everyone at Google, so I just picked one used on me after assuring that it wasn't in any public database. The problem is apparently significantly harder than what interviewers typically get, I didn't know that when I picked it. However I don't think it is a bad question, seeing people struggle with hard problems gives a lot of strong signals as well. Also compared with other interviewers I tend to be on the nicer side of grading, so it is not like getting a hard problem hurts them.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      Speaking from experience, it's much more enjoyable to interview a candidate who does well than one who does not. An failed interview is awkward, and then I have to turn around and write clear and explicit feedback about exactly why someone shouldn't get hired. It's probably my least favorite job responsibility. But at least with calibrated questions, I can be fair and impartial and know how much help the candidate needed. Throw me into a room with a question I don't know, and the same general complaints apply, but now I have to figure it out as we go too, so my focus isn't on feedback and helping, but on understanding the problem.
driverdan 7y ago
Only if it's directly related to the problems the person will be solving. For example, asking data structure questions that aren't relevant to the position is a waste of time and biases your hiring to skills that aren't what you need.

bit_logic 7y ago

Even with easy leetcode, there's still a lot of issues. If a company must do leetcode, it should be like this: * Both candidate and interviewer enter the room. * A small script randomly pulls a leetcode easy question from the website. * They both spend the next hour together working on a solution. I can already hear the objections from leetcode fanatics, things like I have to know the answer already so I can "calibrate" (basically see how fast they can regurgitate the rote memorized solution). A bullshit reason, so an engineer who solves something 1 minute faster than another is better? Or I need to always use the same question so I can compare candidates. Another bullshit reason, I thought it was about seeing how they reason about a problem, why do you need the same question for that? Whatever question you get, it should be clear if they're good at reasoning or not. The truth is, it's just a hazing ritual by insecure engineers who want to be the one with the one true answer they can use to feel better than the candidate. That's all it is and that's why I ignore companies with this kind of process.

username90 7y ago
Algorithm questions doesn't work well if you pull them from a public database, they need to be novel. If you get questions available on Leetcode then they are doing it wrong. > The truth is, it's just a hazing ritual by insecure engineers who want to be the one with the one true answer they can use to feel better than the candidate. It is not, I believe they are useful and have seen data showing that they are useful. The question I use was first used on me and I solved it completely in 20 minutes. I haven't had a single candidate solve it in 45 minutes, and I give them huge amounts of help. I give hire recommendation to those who makes a good attempt and doesn't start bullshitting. Lots of people starts spouting bullshit when they get questions they can't answer for some reason, I guess this kind is what you get if you use publicly available questions.
- pavlov 7y ago
  > "The question I use was first used on me and I solved it completely in 20 minutes. I haven't had a single candidate solve it in 45 minutes, and I give them huge amounts of help." Honestly it sounds like you're proving GP poster's point here: these interview questions are administered by engineers who want to feel better than the candidate.
  - username90 7y ago
    These interview questions are administrated by everyone at Google, so I just picked one used on me after assuring that it wasn't in any public database. The problem is apparently significantly harder than what interviewers typically get, I didn't know that when I picked it. However I don't think it is a bad question, seeing people struggle with hard problems gives a lot of strong signals as well. Also compared with other interviewers I tend to be on the nicer side of grading, so it is not like getting a hard problem hurts them.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Speaking from experience, it's much more enjoyable to interview a candidate who does well than one who does not. An failed interview is awkward, and then I have to turn around and write clear and explicit feedback about exactly why someone shouldn't get hired. It's probably my least favorite job responsibility. But at least with calibrated questions, I can be fair and impartial and know how much help the candidate needed. Throw me into a room with a question I don't know, and the same general complaints apply, but now I have to figure it out as we go too, so my focus isn't on feedback and helping, but on understanding the problem.

driverdan 7y ago

Only if it's directly related to the problems the person will be solving. For example, asking data structure questions that aren't relevant to the position is a waste of time and biases your hiring to skills that aren't what you need.