4 ms·
I have found pair-programming with a dev on a current problem you have in your codebase to be the best litmus test. If u want to give "quiz" interviews, u will
by weq 7y ago
I have found pair-programming with a dev on a current problem you have in your codebase to be the best litmus test.
If u want to give "quiz" interviews, u will get employee's good doing them. Like those CS grads in my class who copied eachothers take-home assignments yet still passed because they were good at memoizing.
Furthermore, this is the first training session for your future employee - you are inducting them into your companies culture. If "answering meaningless questions for the sake of it, is what you want to portray to them. So be it." They have been warned!
Selecting for a certain subset of people, is a business decision. Be aware of what interview practices mean in the context of how that company operates. If the job add has a sticker list of tech-hype, a promise of re-dev'ing a monolith into k8 microservices, with a leetcode interview, you already know alot about that company!
- abalone 7y ago> I have found pair-programming with a dev on a current problem you have in your codebase to be the best litmus test. This has its drawbacks too. You're biasing towards familiarity with your code base's specific tech stack. Good engineers can learn new tech stacks in days/weeks, so that's not that important to screen for. Plus "everyday" code is a lot of plumbing and busywork, so it's not as good a screen for intelligence. Algos at least cut to the "hard stuff". > Like those CS grads in my class who... passed because they were good at memoizing. Getting good at memoizing would be a perfectly fine reason to pass a dynamic programming class. :-)