3 ms·

> That and debate gave me the ability to just start a sentence without knowing where it will end ... it sounds like I've been thinking sensibly about it. I've

> That and debate gave me the ability to just start a sentence without knowing where it will end ... it sounds like I've been thinking sensibly about it. I've always structured my interviews to weed that kind of thing out.

kritiko 6y ago
I'd be interested to hear more about how you do that, and what you try to select for instead.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  Comprehension. Ironically, I just started writing a blog post about it 10 minutes ago. To summarize, I try and get the candidate to discuss tradeoffs between different approaches to common situations that the candidate should be familiar with. For example: Should GetUserById(int userId) return a null, or throw an exception, when there is no user with the ID? Explain the tradeoffs; or explain why each approach is better in different situations. Should you deserialize (xml or JSON) to a dictionary or a strongly-typed object? What if you need to manipulate the document while preserving fields that you didn't know about at compile time? Assuming you have the experience I'm screening for, you either know the tradeoffs or you don't.
  - ativzzz 6y ago
    Any open ended question like > Explain the tradeoffs will benefit greatly from being able to synthesize a bunch of information out of some simple base. Yea you need to know the technical details but being able to explain tradeoffs is more abstract and the OPs method will just lead to a better answer here.
    - twicetwice 6y ago
      Exactly, yes! It's about explaining what you're thinking about as you think about it. Silence is a killer in interviews in my experience (not always—you can be strategic—but for the most part), and I try to minimize dead air in any interview I'm in.
lostcolony 6y ago
Why is it a bad thing? It's off the cuff, and likely less filtered than a prepared statement. If they end up somewhere sensible, then your interview process actually worked; you found someone who when confronted with a new problem, is able to think sensibly about it, even in an interview situation.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  Because if you're talking without knowing what you're going to say, you're not thinking about the problem at hand. The right thing to do is to narrate what you're thinking about. It's very different than starting a sentence without knowing what you're going to say.
  - lostcolony 6y ago
    "you're not thinking about the problem at hand." But OP said he ended up somewhere sensible. He -was- thinking about the problem at hand. As he spoke. He got there in a roundabout fashion, perhaps, and had to think quickly, but it's still -valid-. He's not just bullshitting the interviewer (which is very noticeable and easy to suss out, and never ends anywhere sensible).
twicetwice 6y ago
Duplicating a comment I made above, the idea I wanted to communicate is closer to "being able to communicate what I'm thinking about as I'm thinking about it" — NOT just rambling my way to a BS answer.

kritiko 6y ago

I'd be interested to hear more about how you do that, and what you try to select for instead.

gwbas1c 6y ago
Comprehension. Ironically, I just started writing a blog post about it 10 minutes ago. To summarize, I try and get the candidate to discuss tradeoffs between different approaches to common situations that the candidate should be familiar with. For example: Should GetUserById(int userId) return a null, or throw an exception, when there is no user with the ID? Explain the tradeoffs; or explain why each approach is better in different situations. Should you deserialize (xml or JSON) to a dictionary or a strongly-typed object? What if you need to manipulate the document while preserving fields that you didn't know about at compile time? Assuming you have the experience I'm screening for, you either know the tradeoffs or you don't.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Any open ended question like > Explain the tradeoffs will benefit greatly from being able to synthesize a bunch of information out of some simple base. Yea you need to know the technical details but being able to explain tradeoffs is more abstract and the OPs method will just lead to a better answer here.
  - twicetwice 6y ago
    Exactly, yes! It's about explaining what you're thinking about as you think about it. Silence is a killer in interviews in my experience (not always—you can be strategic—but for the most part), and I try to minimize dead air in any interview I'm in.

lostcolony 6y ago

Why is it a bad thing? It's off the cuff, and likely less filtered than a prepared statement. If they end up somewhere sensible, then your interview process actually worked; you found someone who when confronted with a new problem, is able to think sensibly about it, even in an interview situation.

gwbas1c 6y ago
Because if you're talking without knowing what you're going to say, you're not thinking about the problem at hand. The right thing to do is to narrate what you're thinking about. It's very different than starting a sentence without knowing what you're going to say.
- lostcolony 6y ago
  "you're not thinking about the problem at hand." But OP said he ended up somewhere sensible. He -was- thinking about the problem at hand. As he spoke. He got there in a roundabout fashion, perhaps, and had to think quickly, but it's still -valid-. He's not just bullshitting the interviewer (which is very noticeable and easy to suss out, and never ends anywhere sensible).

twicetwice 6y ago

Duplicating a comment I made above, the idea I wanted to communicate is closer to "being able to communicate what I'm thinking about as I'm thinking about it" — NOT just rambling my way to a BS answer.