6 ms·

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_i

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.

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.