5 ms·

There is a huge difference between a one time evaluation of an aspiring candidate to become a professional and a routine job interview for an established profes

There is a huge difference between a one time evaluation of an aspiring candidate to become a professional and a routine job interview for an established professional changing jobs in the same profession.

google234123 7y ago
You can keep your Google job for 20+ years if you want.
- sillyconvalley 7y ago
  You know this is a false equivalence. The Bar is to make sure you actually understand now only law, but also things like ethics. Whereas a Google interview wants you to code an AVL tree in Brainfuck with your toes while reciting the alphabet backwards because "that's what they made ME do and I got hired and am smart, so that must be what works".
OkayPhysicist 7y ago
Maybe software engineering needs a professional bar. A test, like engineers or lawyers or doctors need to take that proves you can reason with algorithms, and have some standard base of knowledge that ought be expected of a programmer. It would be a win-win. Companies could say "we only hire professionals" in order to avoid wading through the kinds of idiots that Fizzbuzz is designed to screen, and candidates no longer need to repeatedly prove they can put the star peg in the star hole.
wan23 7y ago
It would be pretty nice if as an industry we could figure out how to apply the DRY principle to interviewing. It's the biggest waste of time for both for candidates and interviewers that we need to establish whether a candidate with 20 years of experience can write a for loop every time they apply for any job.
- pandaman 7y ago
  In my uneducated opinion, Google's hazing interview is not to establish whether one can write a for loop or not but to establish how dedicated one is to working at Google. An anecdote: I interviewed at Google ~10 years ago and failed. They did not ask anything complicated (I don't know if it was because the polices were different or they actually needed someone with my expertise) but I had a complete brain freeze for some reason. Anyways, ever since then a Google recruiter reaches out every year or so. I always tell them to get lost because I already failed and they always respond that most of their employees pass on second or third time only. Now, recruiters could have been lying about that but on the other hand, they obviously know that I applied before yet want me to apply again. I'd imagine a regular company would have done something about their recruitment process if they had that many false negatives. However, if I wanted to get dedicated employees, that would be exactly how I hired.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    This is the real difference between the bar exam and a Google interview, in my eyes. The bar exam is intended to pass everyone who meets the standard: your score on the bar is supposed to be an accurate measurement of you. And conversely, if you know the material, you should pass the bar. California's bar exam is considered infamously difficult because the passing rate is "only" 45%. None of that is true of the interview. There is no notional standard. Assessments of the same person vary wildly from sample to sample. If you know the material, you are nevertheless expected to fail.
    - pandaman 7y ago
      This is very true. Unlike an examination there is neither a well defined set of questions nor even a well defined condition for succeeding! It's not good or bad as an interview should be an informal and subjective evaluation. But it does make comparison to an examination invalid just from the procedural point of view.

google234123 7y ago

You can keep your Google job for 20+ years if you want.

sillyconvalley 7y ago
You know this is a false equivalence. The Bar is to make sure you actually understand now only law, but also things like ethics. Whereas a Google interview wants you to code an AVL tree in Brainfuck with your toes while reciting the alphabet backwards because "that's what they made ME do and I got hired and am smart, so that must be what works".

OkayPhysicist 7y ago

Maybe software engineering needs a professional bar. A test, like engineers or lawyers or doctors need to take that proves you can reason with algorithms, and have some standard base of knowledge that ought be expected of a programmer. It would be a win-win. Companies could say "we only hire professionals" in order to avoid wading through the kinds of idiots that Fizzbuzz is designed to screen, and candidates no longer need to repeatedly prove they can put the star peg in the star hole.

wan23 7y ago

It would be pretty nice if as an industry we could figure out how to apply the DRY principle to interviewing. It's the biggest waste of time for both for candidates and interviewers that we need to establish whether a candidate with 20 years of experience can write a for loop every time they apply for any job.

pandaman 7y ago
In my uneducated opinion, Google's hazing interview is not to establish whether one can write a for loop or not but to establish how dedicated one is to working at Google. An anecdote: I interviewed at Google ~10 years ago and failed. They did not ask anything complicated (I don't know if it was because the polices were different or they actually needed someone with my expertise) but I had a complete brain freeze for some reason. Anyways, ever since then a Google recruiter reaches out every year or so. I always tell them to get lost because I already failed and they always respond that most of their employees pass on second or third time only. Now, recruiters could have been lying about that but on the other hand, they obviously know that I applied before yet want me to apply again. I'd imagine a regular company would have done something about their recruitment process if they had that many false negatives. However, if I wanted to get dedicated employees, that would be exactly how I hired.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  This is the real difference between the bar exam and a Google interview, in my eyes. The bar exam is intended to pass everyone who meets the standard: your score on the bar is supposed to be an accurate measurement of you. And conversely, if you know the material, you should pass the bar. California's bar exam is considered infamously difficult because the passing rate is "only" 45%. None of that is true of the interview. There is no notional standard. Assessments of the same person vary wildly from sample to sample. If you know the material, you are nevertheless expected to fail.
  - pandaman 7y ago
    This is very true. Unlike an examination there is neither a well defined set of questions nor even a well defined condition for succeeding! It's not good or bad as an interview should be an informal and subjective evaluation. But it does make comparison to an examination invalid just from the procedural point of view.