5 ms·

Really nothing I haven't read before. Apparently these are all mistakes a candidate can make. I would appreciate it if companies finally acknowledged that inte

Really nothing I haven't read before. Apparently these are all mistakes a candidate can make. I would appreciate it if companies finally acknowledged that interviewing is a two-way street. I have cancelled way more interviews due to red flags happily waved by companies than companies have rejected me because I failed one of the 8 algorithms questions.

egfx 6y ago
Yes I agree. A huge red flag is if the interviewer is leaning back in the video call trying to get you to see the spaceX logo embroidered on their shirt when they don’t work there anymore.
- wolco 6y ago
  A bigger red flag is the same person no shirt but still showing off the spacex tattoo logo
  - egfx 6y ago
    touché
aitorvs 6y ago
I agree with that comment. I have a part 2 of the blog post where I address the issues I have seen in interviewers https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mistakes/ https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mista...
- ThePadawan 6y ago
  This adequately represents the 1:1 experience of one technical interview. Let me cherry-pick an example: You mention that you don't read a candidate's CV before your one interaction with them (the technical interview). As you say, this is a debatable choice (I find it somewhat acceptable). At that point, has anyone else at your company read the candidate's CV and cover letter? Sounds stupid, but you would not believe how many people ask about specific topics ("So have you worked with a relational database before?") not in order to ask deeper questions about knowledge or experience, but just in order to tick off checkboxes on their HR form. (This is not made up, this has actually happened to me.) This bigger issue of a company never asking themselves "How do we as a company show that we actually give a shit about each candidate, and are not just looking for a butt in an office chair" is where in my experience, lots of companies are still completely failing at self-reflection.
  - aitorvs 6y ago
    Yes, the post focuses around just an on-site interview. At that point HR had already read the CV. Regarding not reading the CV, that is just what works for me, I discover what candidates worked on while asking questions and follow-ups if I want to go more in depth.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > At that point, has anyone else at your company read the candidate's CV and cover letter? Sounds stupid, but you would not believe how many people ask about specific topics ("So have you worked with a relational database before?") My understanding is that this situation happens as a test to see that you were the one that wrote your resume.
    - ThePadawan 6y ago
      Huh, I didn't think this would be common enough for companies to start testing against. Thanks for the insight!
      - Izkata 6y ago
        It's not just a tech-worker thing, I remember being warned about knowing exactly what's on your resume in highschool ~15 years ago.
- riccardopa 6y ago
  Case in point - “given a list of numbers, return two numbers ...” is a poor question, because it does not state that the return values must come from the list given.
  - EForEndeavour 6y ago
    Isn't that the exact point of the surrounding article? The author emphasizes the importance of asking clarifying questions. In that context, I think it's a great question: > given a list of numbers, return two numbers such that one times the other results in 220 It's highly plausible that at some point in the candidate's career, a nontechnical coworker or manager will use nontechnical language to ask them to do something technical, and they'll need to ask for better specification. A candidate who smart-assedly ignores the input list and returns the numbers 10 and 22 is demonstrating that they assume the asker is an idiot not even worth the time to ask clarifying questions. The candidate has messed up priors: what is the chance that the only piece of information provided in the question is utterly irrelevant? The candidate is also prone to unilaterally making assumptions that reduce their workload, possibly while smugly patting themselves on the back for Kobayashi-Maruing their way past the idiotic interview question. That's bad. A candidate who has a modicum of social intelligence would reasonably assume that the asker expects them to limit their consideration to the given list (otherwise what's the goddamn point?). Even then, there are ambiguities, which the article rightfully points out you should ask about.
    - anthony_d 6y ago
      I think you’re missing half the argument. If I was given that question it would be a red flag. 1) it’s a stupid algorithm question similar to what I saw in high school, 2) it’s poorly worded and nonsensical. Depending on what I know about the company I may or may not give them the benefit of the doubt. In most cases it’s safer to assume the interviewer (and by extension the team) is just not competent.
      - EForEndeavour 6y ago
        Maybe it's different for you and your specific career path, but coders can expect to face a lot of "stupid algorithm questions similar to what they saw in high school" throughout the course of their jobs. (And if you delve into management roles, you are practically guaranteed to find interpersonal problems similar to what you saw in high school.) It stands to reason that if you rejected this question in an interview with the complaint that it was "poorly worded and nonsensical" (I put it to you that it's a perfectly meaningful question), instead of taking the constructive route by asking clarifying questions, this would probably count as a red flag to the employer about you. So again, the question would effectively inform both parties in this case that they are not mutually compatible.
devmunchies 6y ago
> I would appreciate it if companies finally acknowledged that interviewing is a two-way street. you wanting the company to acknowledge that its a two-way street is evidence that it's not. It's very rare. > I have cancelled way more interviews due to red flags happily waved by companies than companies have rejected me You can boycott a business too if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a two-way street. You have very little leverage over the business.
- ThePadawan 6y ago
  > You can boycott a business too if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a two-way street. You have very little leverage over the business. Yes I can? I can walk away from the interviewing process. They have invested in recruiting just as much if not more than I have in interview prep. Their employees are paid just the same for technical interviews than their normal work.
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    my point is that your ability to walk away doesn't make it an equal relationship. There are way more reputable candidates than there are reputable companies. It's one sided. The exception being candidates skilled at a rare niche, then it's stacked in your favor.
    - ThePadawan 6y ago
      > There are way more reputable candidates than there are reputable companies. Your mileage might greatly vary. I've only encountered companies that struggle to hire good people (so they end up not hiring many people at all, not enough to keep up with growth) and companies that struggle to hire good people (so they end up hiring everyone that passes Fizzbuzz and can't keep up their quality). But then this is an insular market (Switzerland) where there are tens of thousands of unfilled positions.
- hrktb 6y ago
  It is already a two-way street in that as a candidate you chose the company, and expect specific things from them. If they don’t deliver on that part you will walk away. To me parent’s point is that any company acting as if you’d unconditionally accept their offer if they made one is a recipe for failure.

egfx 6y ago

Yes I agree. A huge red flag is if the interviewer is leaning back in the video call trying to get you to see the spaceX logo embroidered on their shirt when they don’t work there anymore.

wolco 6y ago
A bigger red flag is the same person no shirt but still showing off the spacex tattoo logo
- egfx 6y ago
  touché

aitorvs 6y ago

I agree with that comment. I have a part 2 of the blog post where I address the issues I have seen in interviewers https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mistakes/ https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mista...

ThePadawan 6y ago
This adequately represents the 1:1 experience of one technical interview. Let me cherry-pick an example: You mention that you don't read a candidate's CV before your one interaction with them (the technical interview). As you say, this is a debatable choice (I find it somewhat acceptable). At that point, has anyone else at your company read the candidate's CV and cover letter? Sounds stupid, but you would not believe how many people ask about specific topics ("So have you worked with a relational database before?") not in order to ask deeper questions about knowledge or experience, but just in order to tick off checkboxes on their HR form. (This is not made up, this has actually happened to me.) This bigger issue of a company never asking themselves "How do we as a company show that we actually give a shit about each candidate, and are not just looking for a butt in an office chair" is where in my experience, lots of companies are still completely failing at self-reflection.
- aitorvs 6y ago
  Yes, the post focuses around just an on-site interview. At that point HR had already read the CV. Regarding not reading the CV, that is just what works for me, I discover what candidates worked on while asking questions and follow-ups if I want to go more in depth.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > At that point, has anyone else at your company read the candidate's CV and cover letter? Sounds stupid, but you would not believe how many people ask about specific topics ("So have you worked with a relational database before?") My understanding is that this situation happens as a test to see that you were the one that wrote your resume.
  - ThePadawan 6y ago
    Huh, I didn't think this would be common enough for companies to start testing against. Thanks for the insight!
    - Izkata 6y ago
      It's not just a tech-worker thing, I remember being warned about knowing exactly what's on your resume in highschool ~15 years ago.
riccardopa 6y ago
Case in point - “given a list of numbers, return two numbers ...” is a poor question, because it does not state that the return values must come from the list given.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  Isn't that the exact point of the surrounding article? The author emphasizes the importance of asking clarifying questions. In that context, I think it's a great question: > given a list of numbers, return two numbers such that one times the other results in 220 It's highly plausible that at some point in the candidate's career, a nontechnical coworker or manager will use nontechnical language to ask them to do something technical, and they'll need to ask for better specification. A candidate who smart-assedly ignores the input list and returns the numbers 10 and 22 is demonstrating that they assume the asker is an idiot not even worth the time to ask clarifying questions. The candidate has messed up priors: what is the chance that the only piece of information provided in the question is utterly irrelevant? The candidate is also prone to unilaterally making assumptions that reduce their workload, possibly while smugly patting themselves on the back for Kobayashi-Maruing their way past the idiotic interview question. That's bad. A candidate who has a modicum of social intelligence would reasonably assume that the asker expects them to limit their consideration to the given list (otherwise what's the goddamn point?). Even then, there are ambiguities, which the article rightfully points out you should ask about.
  - anthony_d 6y ago
    I think you’re missing half the argument. If I was given that question it would be a red flag. 1) it’s a stupid algorithm question similar to what I saw in high school, 2) it’s poorly worded and nonsensical. Depending on what I know about the company I may or may not give them the benefit of the doubt. In most cases it’s safer to assume the interviewer (and by extension the team) is just not competent.
    - EForEndeavour 6y ago
      Maybe it's different for you and your specific career path, but coders can expect to face a lot of "stupid algorithm questions similar to what they saw in high school" throughout the course of their jobs. (And if you delve into management roles, you are practically guaranteed to find interpersonal problems similar to what you saw in high school.) It stands to reason that if you rejected this question in an interview with the complaint that it was "poorly worded and nonsensical" (I put it to you that it's a perfectly meaningful question), instead of taking the constructive route by asking clarifying questions, this would probably count as a red flag to the employer about you. So again, the question would effectively inform both parties in this case that they are not mutually compatible.

devmunchies 6y ago

> I would appreciate it if companies finally acknowledged that interviewing is a two-way street. you wanting the company to acknowledge that its a two-way street is evidence that it's not. It's very rare. > I have cancelled way more interviews due to red flags happily waved by companies than companies have rejected me You can boycott a business too if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a two-way street. You have very little leverage over the business.

ThePadawan 6y ago
> You can boycott a business too if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a two-way street. You have very little leverage over the business. Yes I can? I can walk away from the interviewing process. They have invested in recruiting just as much if not more than I have in interview prep. Their employees are paid just the same for technical interviews than their normal work.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  my point is that your ability to walk away doesn't make it an equal relationship. There are way more reputable candidates than there are reputable companies. It's one sided. The exception being candidates skilled at a rare niche, then it's stacked in your favor.
  - ThePadawan 6y ago
    > There are way more reputable candidates than there are reputable companies. Your mileage might greatly vary. I've only encountered companies that struggle to hire good people (so they end up not hiring many people at all, not enough to keep up with growth) and companies that struggle to hire good people (so they end up hiring everyone that passes Fizzbuzz and can't keep up their quality). But then this is an insular market (Switzerland) where there are tens of thousands of unfilled positions.
hrktb 6y ago
It is already a two-way street in that as a candidate you chose the company, and expect specific things from them. If they don’t deliver on that part you will walk away. To me parent’s point is that any company acting as if you’d unconditionally accept their offer if they made one is a recipe for failure.