3 ms·

Over the past 27 years, I've worked for 8 different organizations, including two FAANGs, and I've never technically prepared for any interview. This is not som

Over the past 27 years, I've worked for 8 different organizations, including two FAANGs, and I've never technically prepared for any interview. This is not some kind of indirect boasting about how smart I am. Far from it. I feel positively dumb compared to my peers. I rarely fully nail the most difficult algorithmic interviews, and I don't think that's the point. I think I get most of my 'points' by taking a very direct, easy going and open approach to things. The phrases "I don't know" and "I'm not sure" will get practically worn out at the end of my interviews. I don't think it's what one knows as much as it is about how one approaches and thinks about problems. Second item: do the interviews anyway, even if you don't necessarily intend on leaving. I'll tell recruiters that I'm pretty happy where I'm at, and that it would take some kind of enormous comp package to entice me to move. But we'll still do the whole process, and I'll often end up turning down a pretty solid offer. For many/most companies, turning down an offer 'locks' you out for a year or so; no big deal. I really enjoy interviewing at the top tier companies, because, in the end, I always learn a great deal. Like most things, interviewing is something you can get good at with practice. What's nice is that you have the opportunity to get several hours of face to face time with really smart people at no out of pocket cost, except for a day of PTO from your current job if you live local.

kyralis 7y ago
On the flip side, as an interviewer, this all incredibly true. In particular, I frequently end up asking algorithmic questions during interviews. For all the hate that they seem to get, I find them to actually be quite predictive; in my experience, the people who are extended offers despite just barely getting by in that portion of the interview are also the ones that struggle when those types of issues come up during actual development- and yes, despite claims to the contrary, basic fundamental algorithmic knowledge really does turn out to be useful in a surprising number of circumstances. However, I will say that the utility is entirely based on how the interviewer handles things. I've passed many candidates who have failed to complete the problem at hand because throughout their attempt they demonstrated an ability to communicate, an ability to reason about a problem, and an ability to respond to feedback during the course of trying to arrive at a solution. In particular, one of my favorite questions has a tendency to make candidates try an approach that ultimately ends up being a dead-end as their first attempt. That's fine! It's completely natural! The really interesting bit is how they they respond when I produce counterexamples that start showing the limitations of that approach (and, ultimately, its infeasibility.) Do they keep digging the whole? Do they rethink their approach? Do they say "Yep, that makes sense, but let's see if we can get this done for the easy case and then we can approach the more general problem?" Those sorts of questions are the ones that ultimately end up being the most valuable.

kyralis 7y ago

On the flip side, as an interviewer, this all incredibly true. In particular, I frequently end up asking algorithmic questions during interviews. For all the hate that they seem to get, I find them to actually be quite predictive; in my experience, the people who are extended offers despite just barely getting by in that portion of the interview are also the ones that struggle when those types of issues come up during actual development- and yes, despite claims to the contrary, basic fundamental algorithmic knowledge really does turn out to be useful in a surprising number of circumstances. However, I will say that the utility is entirely based on how the interviewer handles things. I've passed many candidates who have failed to complete the problem at hand because throughout their attempt they demonstrated an ability to communicate, an ability to reason about a problem, and an ability to respond to feedback during the course of trying to arrive at a solution. In particular, one of my favorite questions has a tendency to make candidates try an approach that ultimately ends up being a dead-end as their first attempt. That's fine! It's completely natural! The really interesting bit is how they they respond when I produce counterexamples that start showing the limitations of that approach (and, ultimately, its infeasibility.) Do they keep digging the whole? Do they rethink their approach? Do they say "Yep, that makes sense, but let's see if we can get this done for the easy case and then we can approach the more general problem?" Those sorts of questions are the ones that ultimately end up being the most valuable.