4 ms·

> There's a secondary problem too: They are questions that have right and wrong answers, and they break down quickly if the candidate realizes that the truth is

> There's a secondary problem too: They are questions that have right and wrong answers, and they break down quickly if the candidate realizes that the truth is a liability. Excellent point; thought-provoking and well-put. Agreed completely. The article does have a few good questions, and the best, IMO, is #36: > 36. How would you build a product for people who are looking for an apartment? That is such a good question because it's incredibly open-ended. There is no wrong answer. It doesn't even necessarily require a computer-based solution. If the interviewer moderates the interview well, a single open-ended question with a broad scope can lead to wide-ranging conversations that shed light on more than just technical prowess. Open-ended questions also present the interviewer the opportunity to ask spontaneous questions, digging into the thought processes behind a candidate's choices. That digging can and should yield lots of valuable, relevant information about the candidate. Assuming, of course, the interviewer has the skills necessary to extract that value from the interview. Ask "Why?" enough in these situations, and you eventually get something close to the truth[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Whys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Whys

wpietri 7y ago
> If the interviewer moderates the interview well, a single open-ended question with a broad scope can lead to wide-ranging conversations that shed light on more than just technical prowess. Yes, this is my favorite kind of interview question. These days my goal as an interviewer is more to find somebody's strengths than their weaknesses. Nobody knows everything; nobody's good at everything. So what I'm trying to figure out in an interview is what this person can add to the team. Sure, you do need to keep an eye out for red flags. But you won't find all of those in an interview anyhow, because people can hide those. It's much harder to fake a strength, and it's their strengths are ultimately what we hire people for.
- modwest 7y ago
  We'd probably get along well then.
majormajor 7y ago
> If the interviewer moderates the interview well, a single open-ended question with a broad scope can lead to wide-ranging conversations that shed light on more than just technical prowess. Way more engineers fail these, IME, than algorithms questions. I have to have a pretty low bar for "willingness to speculate and have open-ended conversation about approaches to problems," unfortunately.
- modwest 7y ago
  That’s a bummer. Why is that, do you think?
  - codycraven 7y ago
    I see what you did there.

wpietri 7y ago

> If the interviewer moderates the interview well, a single open-ended question with a broad scope can lead to wide-ranging conversations that shed light on more than just technical prowess. Yes, this is my favorite kind of interview question. These days my goal as an interviewer is more to find somebody's strengths than their weaknesses. Nobody knows everything; nobody's good at everything. So what I'm trying to figure out in an interview is what this person can add to the team. Sure, you do need to keep an eye out for red flags. But you won't find all of those in an interview anyhow, because people can hide those. It's much harder to fake a strength, and it's their strengths are ultimately what we hire people for.

modwest 7y ago
We'd probably get along well then.

majormajor 7y ago

> If the interviewer moderates the interview well, a single open-ended question with a broad scope can lead to wide-ranging conversations that shed light on more than just technical prowess. Way more engineers fail these, IME, than algorithms questions. I have to have a pretty low bar for "willingness to speculate and have open-ended conversation about approaches to problems," unfortunately.

modwest 7y ago
That’s a bummer. Why is that, do you think?
- codycraven 7y ago
  I see what you did there.