5 ms·

Yeah it's pretty easy to tell where a senior engineer is at if you're in the same domain as them. Just discussing projects really provides much more insight tha

Yeah it's pretty easy to tell where a senior engineer is at if you're in the same domain as them. Just discussing projects really provides much more insight than leetcoding them to death. It's shocking to me how many places are leetcoding senior engineers before talking to them about their past work or discussing design. Is it because we want to have hiring automated? Is it because of discrimination? Why is the leetcode interview process so widely adopted?

closeparen 7y ago
Behavioral, system design, coding, and problem solving interviews are AND gated. It's not a question of one being more important, but which ordering optimizes the funnel and employee time. There are many more calendar slots belonging to tech ICs than to hiring managers; you can run a higher velocity pipeline if you start with a technical phone screen. The coding interview itself is an immune system against the surprisingly large population of candidates who have long resumes and can talk a big game but not actually perform. (I didn't believe these people existed either, until I started doing phone screens). It's also a way to recognize smart people who will do well with whatever they're given, even if they're underutilized or in a different domain at their current job. Tech companies are typically hiring more for this than for tech stack or business domain similarity.
- monksy 7y ago
  > but not actually perform You're trying to measure how they'll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you're trying to get free work from them. (Just a note.. this is on the words you used) > recognize smart people who will do well with whatever they're given, How does a take home coding test that is limited on time, and their own time + stress indicate that they are in that category?
  - dahart 7y ago
    > You’re trying to measure how they’ll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you’re trying to get free work from them. I wish the hyperbole about trying to get free work during an interview would just die already. Nobody is getting free work by interviewing applicants, interviews are costly to most companies, but necessary to grow the team. Just because interviews take time and are difficult and scary doesn’t mean someone is taking advantage of you. Try to put yourself in the company’s shoes — they have to evaluate you one way or the other. How would you do it? A time limited stress test is extremely effective at identifying certain kinds of performers. Obviously being able to solve problems fast is an indicator of a certain kind of smart. This doesn’t identify all smart people, and nobody claimed it did, that’s why a coding test is almost always one part of many in the interview process, and people routinely get hired when passing some parts without passing all the parts.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      I consider it a failure of the company and interviewers if they need more than a few 1hr sessions to determine candidate suitability.
      - cmonnow 7y ago
        Can you name a single company that needs 'more than a few' 1 hr sessions ? Accepted definition of 'few' is at least 3 and usually between 3-5 Most companies have 4 sessions : 1 HR phone, 1 tech phone, 1 tech onsite, 1 HR onsite. But bigger companies (i.e. bigger salary) increase the 'tech onsite' up to 4. Some companies replace one of the tech phone/onsites with a take-home challenge. If you want more money, you gotta beat the other 100 people who also want more money. Simple case of demand and supply.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

closeparen 7y ago

Behavioral, system design, coding, and problem solving interviews are AND gated. It's not a question of one being more important, but which ordering optimizes the funnel and employee time. There are many more calendar slots belonging to tech ICs than to hiring managers; you can run a higher velocity pipeline if you start with a technical phone screen. The coding interview itself is an immune system against the surprisingly large population of candidates who have long resumes and can talk a big game but not actually perform. (I didn't believe these people existed either, until I started doing phone screens). It's also a way to recognize smart people who will do well with whatever they're given, even if they're underutilized or in a different domain at their current job. Tech companies are typically hiring more for this than for tech stack or business domain similarity.

monksy 7y ago
> but not actually perform You're trying to measure how they'll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you're trying to get free work from them. (Just a note.. this is on the words you used) > recognize smart people who will do well with whatever they're given, How does a take home coding test that is limited on time, and their own time + stress indicate that they are in that category?
- dahart 7y ago
  > You’re trying to measure how they’ll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you’re trying to get free work from them. I wish the hyperbole about trying to get free work during an interview would just die already. Nobody is getting free work by interviewing applicants, interviews are costly to most companies, but necessary to grow the team. Just because interviews take time and are difficult and scary doesn’t mean someone is taking advantage of you. Try to put yourself in the company’s shoes — they have to evaluate you one way or the other. How would you do it? A time limited stress test is extremely effective at identifying certain kinds of performers. Obviously being able to solve problems fast is an indicator of a certain kind of smart. This doesn’t identify all smart people, and nobody claimed it did, that’s why a coding test is almost always one part of many in the interview process, and people routinely get hired when passing some parts without passing all the parts.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    I consider it a failure of the company and interviewers if they need more than a few 1hr sessions to determine candidate suitability.
    - cmonnow 7y ago
      Can you name a single company that needs 'more than a few' 1 hr sessions ? Accepted definition of 'few' is at least 3 and usually between 3-5 Most companies have 4 sessions : 1 HR phone, 1 tech phone, 1 tech onsite, 1 HR onsite. But bigger companies (i.e. bigger salary) increase the 'tech onsite' up to 4. Some companies replace one of the tech phone/onsites with a take-home challenge. If you want more money, you gotta beat the other 100 people who also want more money. Simple case of demand and supply.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]