3 ms·
It isn't the best proxy though, because it's not even trying to simulate the conditions under which real work is done (e.g. in real work, most developers will o
by m12k 6y ago
It isn't the best proxy though, because it's not even trying to simulate the conditions under which real work is done (e.g. in real work, most developers will often look up details, and it's no problem at all - what matters is how they think about solving problems, that they know what they don't know, and that they fit into the team). This is a proxy for 'is this an experienced person with a strong memory?', not 'is this a qualified candidate who would perform well in the position?'. It's quite possible to fit the latter and not the former. If you're the size of e.g. Google so your problem is more to weed out bad candidates quickly rather than catch all good candidates, then sure, go ahead (false negatives are acceptable to completely avoid false positives). If you are a smaller company, then your pool of applicants is quite limited and it's much more important that you don't pass over any qualified candidates that happen to fall into your net.
- mbrameld 6y agoWhy do you assume candidates can't look information up during interviews? Karat is probably the largest provider of technical interview as a service and they allow candidates to look things up while they're interviewing. The goal is to learn how the candidate works and what they can accomplish, not simply what they've memorized.
- kmonsen 6y agoI interviewed quite a few times when I was at google, and in very few cases would I deduct score for something that could be looked up online. I always started the interview with saying that if they wanted to look something up they could ask me, and if I didn’t know we could make it up and pretend the API existed. I frequently discussed this with others and they all did the same. The point is absolutely not to find some technicality and use it against the candidate.