3 ms·

People often confuse knowing things with being smart. It seems useful to me to ask questions that sound on the face of it like things nobody knows, but can actu

People often confuse knowing things with being smart. It seems useful to me to ask questions that sound on the face of it like things nobody knows, but can actually be figured out based on knowledge everyone has, because it reduces the elements of chance and bias from testing arbitrary knowledge. When someone says they hate "logic problems", it sounds as though they're talking about this: https://www.pennydellpuzzles.com/products/logic-math/original-logic-problems/ https://www.pennydellpuzzles.com/products/logic-math/origina... I don't like those either, but I doubt they are used in interviews.

p_l 7y ago
The thing you miss is that your assumptions of "things everybody knows" are not necessarily correct. Many common examples of interview riddles that are defended as "it's just Fermi Estimation!" end up "memorise, interview, forget" method for many people, because there's close to total disconnect between assumed background knowledge and actual background knowledge (a question I encountered recently asked for estimate of revenue of an MLB stadium. If not for being spelled immediately after, my questioning would start with "wtf is MLB?"). Then there is the other part, namely that unless you don't know (memorise) certain common tropes of a Fermi quiz, you might understand the question as asking correct answer, not showing that you can use random number for most of the input data. That said, I have been asked things that are fermi estimation problems on interviews that didn't suck and didn't feel like pointless riddles of Mensa wanna-bees. They tended to be based on the work problems, thus allowing to have a real and concrete expectation that the interviewee shares the background knowledge (in fact, part of the reason for the question might be checking if they do share that knowledge!). That kind rarely gets the flak of "how many piano tuners in city of Chicago".
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "your assumptions of "things everybody knows"" The fact that not everyone knows the same things is the whole point! And if you don't have any knowledge that is related to the interviewer's, then how are they going to evaluate you using any method? But sure, there are specific, inflexible requirements. You have to know false precision is BS, and I have no sympathy for people who have a problem with that. You have to in general, know what you know and what you don't.
  - p_l 7y ago
    Note that I mentioned asking interviewee for estimates related to the job - that is an understandable assumption, as the question touches on knowledge and experience that is a priori known to be relevant. OTOH, especially if you're interviewing internationally, using "common knowledge" instead of job/technology area related one? Pretty much a fail, helped along with books dedicated to memorising bullshit questions. Another issue is that the typical "fermi problem" is stated in absolute, precision way. Ask "how would you estimate X" and you'd probably get good answers even from people who don't memorize interview gotchas.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I have no idea how it may in practice be done badly, because I've never encountered it personally. But I suspect the reason people widely hate the concept is because schooling pounds into you that there is only one way to get the right answer, and it must be exact. And so when people complain about being tested on trivia, what they really mean is "I want to be tested on trivia that I know". I would actually like to be evaluated based on something other than knowing trivia, but of course I would not like to take a stupidly constructed test.

p_l 7y ago

The thing you miss is that your assumptions of "things everybody knows" are not necessarily correct. Many common examples of interview riddles that are defended as "it's just Fermi Estimation!" end up "memorise, interview, forget" method for many people, because there's close to total disconnect between assumed background knowledge and actual background knowledge (a question I encountered recently asked for estimate of revenue of an MLB stadium. If not for being spelled immediately after, my questioning would start with "wtf is MLB?"). Then there is the other part, namely that unless you don't know (memorise) certain common tropes of a Fermi quiz, you might understand the question as asking correct answer, not showing that you can use random number for most of the input data. That said, I have been asked things that are fermi estimation problems on interviews that didn't suck and didn't feel like pointless riddles of Mensa wanna-bees. They tended to be based on the work problems, thus allowing to have a real and concrete expectation that the interviewee shares the background knowledge (in fact, part of the reason for the question might be checking if they do share that knowledge!). That kind rarely gets the flak of "how many piano tuners in city of Chicago".

perl4ever 7y ago
"your assumptions of "things everybody knows"" The fact that not everyone knows the same things is the whole point! And if you don't have any knowledge that is related to the interviewer's, then how are they going to evaluate you using any method? But sure, there are specific, inflexible requirements. You have to know false precision is BS, and I have no sympathy for people who have a problem with that. You have to in general, know what you know and what you don't.
- p_l 7y ago
  Note that I mentioned asking interviewee for estimates related to the job - that is an understandable assumption, as the question touches on knowledge and experience that is a priori known to be relevant. OTOH, especially if you're interviewing internationally, using "common knowledge" instead of job/technology area related one? Pretty much a fail, helped along with books dedicated to memorising bullshit questions. Another issue is that the typical "fermi problem" is stated in absolute, precision way. Ask "how would you estimate X" and you'd probably get good answers even from people who don't memorize interview gotchas.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I have no idea how it may in practice be done badly, because I've never encountered it personally. But I suspect the reason people widely hate the concept is because schooling pounds into you that there is only one way to get the right answer, and it must be exact. And so when people complain about being tested on trivia, what they really mean is "I want to be tested on trivia that I know". I would actually like to be evaluated based on something other than knowing trivia, but of course I would not like to take a stupidly constructed test.