5 ms·

This post reeks of elitist/holier-than-thou attitude that the whole industry has unfortunately been feeding into. I also suspect that it is why there's so littl

This post reeks of elitist/holier-than-thou attitude that the whole industry has unfortunately been feeding into. I also suspect that it is why there's so little diversity in tech and why there's this absurd notion that there's not enough "qualified" candidates to fill positions. 1) is something that I abhor because it allows the interviewer to assume very little of the responsibility for communication, which is an exercise for both people to come to a consensus of what the task is at hand. Instead of saying "did I communicate this effectively", it's saying "it's the listener's fault for not understanding me." 2) is very similar to 1) in that it also absolves the interviewer of any responsibility for communicate. It's also an absurd proposition because it's saying it is the interviewee's job to keep me, the interviewer, entertained. This is absurd because the purpose of interviews is to vet a candidate, if that's not the purpose, then the interviewer should make it more clear that an hour's worth of a jester's time is being requested. 3) is specifying a criteria that might make sense for recent college graduates or if the candidate knows what to prepare for. In my experience, no such guidance is typically given, the most I've seen is "prepare for questions that might be relevant to the role/job posting." The interviewer fails to consider does he/she have a full time job? Did the interviewer actually provide materials for he/she to study? If the questions the OP cited were not actually provided, how do they know to prepare for those types of questions.

RandoHolmes 6y ago
I think the point is that you can't control the interviewer, only yourself, so concentrate on what you can control. I think you're taking an overly unfair view of what the author meant.
- freddy418 6y ago
  Then you're saying, "the system is broken, just live with it." We know what's wrong with that statement in this climate.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    So if I decide to change my own behavior rather than trying to change my spouses behavior, it's because I'm really saying the marriage is broken? That's a non-sequitur.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Do you think current and future interviewers won’t be reading these articles too?
tdeck 6y ago
> Instead of saying "did I communicate this effectively", it's saying "it's the listener's fault for not understanding me." The problem is that customers, PMs, and managers often don't communicate clearly either. Being able to ask the right clarifying questions is part of being a software professional. It's completely fair for new grads to lack that skill but experienced people should have developed it. I completely agree on 2 and 3 though. Guess some people have become so used to the status quo that leetcode no longer seems like an aberration.
- lukifer 6y ago
  > The problem is that customers, PMs, and managers often don't communicate clearly either. Exactly. One of my favorite interview challenges is to write an input validation that checks for a valid SSN. The actual code should be pretty trivial for a competent programmer; but the real test is if they ask for what "valid SSN" means (123-45-6789, 123456789, 123 45 6789, all of the above?) If they jump right to the code based on an assumption, without even thinking or asking about it, that signals that they're likely to make such assumptions in the field.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    This is a perfect example of what I was talking about in other parts of this thread. Developers have this really bad habit of coming to conclusions that don't actually follow from the premise. The fact that they made the assumption that an SSN would be input exactly the way it's always input everywhere is not indicative that they would make dangerous assumptions elsewhere. If someone were to bring that up to me I'd probably laugh at them and tell them to write an extra function to normalize the input first and pass that off to the validation function because they're separate concerns. Because that's exactly what I would do, assume it's in the typical format. And if it came to light that the SSN had to be normalized, I'd normalize it at the edge of the system rather than making my validation function more complicated by giving it concerns that are unrelated to validation. Which means you wouldn't hire me, despite my 24+ years of experience building software.
mbrameld 6y ago
1) is a measure of a candidate's ability to handle incomplete or unclear requirements, which are a fact of life for the vast majority of working developers. 2) you're conflating "engaged" and "entertained". If you're engaging the interviewer then they can help guide you when you're going astray. If you're not the chances of them realizing you're headed down the wrong path decreases. 3) how is the candidate's current employment status relevant to their preparedness? The things listed in the article are the kinds of things you can expect to encounter at most technical interviews. You can expect to be asked about a project you've worked on, you can expect to be asked about data structures and algorithms, you can expect to be asked about software development best practices. If you were interviewing to be a barista would you need to be told to expect to answer questions about coffee?
- ubercow13 6y ago
  I think it's more like if you were quizzed on the chemical structures associated with various coffee aromas
heartbeats 6y ago
Well, yes. The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. The onus is on him to get hired. They're flooded with applicants. A smart applicant can thrive in any system, no matter how bad - otherwise, they're not very smart. If you'd hire people based of how much they could lift, you'd see how the smart, driven, competent people coming in suddenly have much bigger muscles. The system is never broken. You are broken for failing to adapt to it. If you fail to adapt to it, there are hundreds willing to take your place.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. Interviews are two-sided auditions. If there was a genuine talent shortage as we keep hearing about, the asymmetry would be the other direction; while it would still be two-sided, the bigger burden would be on the interviewer as the representative of the prospective employer to impress the prospective employee.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  The system is functioning as designed. But if you're implying that it can't be improved then I don't know if I agree with that. For instance, it might be possible that savvy candidates use interviews to vet whether they want to work there, because for every offer they get, there are hundreds more they could get (and often up to a dozen that they do get). If that is the case, then it's possible that a broken system could end up coming into existence in a company that: - has a revolving door of expensive attrition - loses all the good talent so that ones that remain aren't good at their jobs - slowly ossifies into place - can't seem to get things done - eventually loses its customers - loses market position, growth and relevance - becomes a bankrupted carcass eventually stripped for parts by a distressed asset firm Sounds familiar? I agree that if you fail to adapt to the system, there are hundreds willing to take your place. But where we may disagree is whether I'd envy any of them. I'll tell you one thing, though -- I've never had to sacrifice my career trajectory to just put up with this kind of nonsense. In fact, the places I've had to put up with it the most are the places where I've grown the least and leaving opened up a much better opportunity afterwards.
jarjoura 6y ago
I disagree, the OP reads as genuinely trying to help people pass interviews by giving them some insights. Even if the information may seem obvious to you, or annoying or elitist, or whatever, as long as it's valuable to some readers, then his effort is worth it. At the end of the day, all tech companies compete with each other to hire people who exhibit a growth mindset and show strong signs of perseverance. That's why they give you challenges to overcome on the spot. Past experience will help you start higher-up on the ladder, if you get an offer, but it won't mean crap if you can't demonstrate your willingness to push through the challenges. You're only holding yourself back if you dismiss advice instead of welcoming any and all tips and tricks to improving your chances.

RandoHolmes 6y ago

I think the point is that you can't control the interviewer, only yourself, so concentrate on what you can control. I think you're taking an overly unfair view of what the author meant.

freddy418 6y ago
Then you're saying, "the system is broken, just live with it." We know what's wrong with that statement in this climate.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  So if I decide to change my own behavior rather than trying to change my spouses behavior, it's because I'm really saying the marriage is broken? That's a non-sequitur.
hinkley 6y ago
Do you think current and future interviewers won’t be reading these articles too?

tdeck 6y ago

> Instead of saying "did I communicate this effectively", it's saying "it's the listener's fault for not understanding me." The problem is that customers, PMs, and managers often don't communicate clearly either. Being able to ask the right clarifying questions is part of being a software professional. It's completely fair for new grads to lack that skill but experienced people should have developed it. I completely agree on 2 and 3 though. Guess some people have become so used to the status quo that leetcode no longer seems like an aberration.

lukifer 6y ago
> The problem is that customers, PMs, and managers often don't communicate clearly either. Exactly. One of my favorite interview challenges is to write an input validation that checks for a valid SSN. The actual code should be pretty trivial for a competent programmer; but the real test is if they ask for what "valid SSN" means (123-45-6789, 123456789, 123 45 6789, all of the above?) If they jump right to the code based on an assumption, without even thinking or asking about it, that signals that they're likely to make such assumptions in the field.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  This is a perfect example of what I was talking about in other parts of this thread. Developers have this really bad habit of coming to conclusions that don't actually follow from the premise. The fact that they made the assumption that an SSN would be input exactly the way it's always input everywhere is not indicative that they would make dangerous assumptions elsewhere. If someone were to bring that up to me I'd probably laugh at them and tell them to write an extra function to normalize the input first and pass that off to the validation function because they're separate concerns. Because that's exactly what I would do, assume it's in the typical format. And if it came to light that the SSN had to be normalized, I'd normalize it at the edge of the system rather than making my validation function more complicated by giving it concerns that are unrelated to validation. Which means you wouldn't hire me, despite my 24+ years of experience building software.

mbrameld 6y ago

1) is a measure of a candidate's ability to handle incomplete or unclear requirements, which are a fact of life for the vast majority of working developers. 2) you're conflating "engaged" and "entertained". If you're engaging the interviewer then they can help guide you when you're going astray. If you're not the chances of them realizing you're headed down the wrong path decreases. 3) how is the candidate's current employment status relevant to their preparedness? The things listed in the article are the kinds of things you can expect to encounter at most technical interviews. You can expect to be asked about a project you've worked on, you can expect to be asked about data structures and algorithms, you can expect to be asked about software development best practices. If you were interviewing to be a barista would you need to be told to expect to answer questions about coffee?

ubercow13 6y ago
I think it's more like if you were quizzed on the chemical structures associated with various coffee aromas

heartbeats 6y ago

Well, yes. The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. The onus is on him to get hired. They're flooded with applicants. A smart applicant can thrive in any system, no matter how bad - otherwise, they're not very smart. If you'd hire people based of how much they could lift, you'd see how the smart, driven, competent people coming in suddenly have much bigger muscles. The system is never broken. You are broken for failing to adapt to it. If you fail to adapt to it, there are hundreds willing to take your place.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. Interviews are two-sided auditions. If there was a genuine talent shortage as we keep hearing about, the asymmetry would be the other direction; while it would still be two-sided, the bigger burden would be on the interviewer as the representative of the prospective employer to impress the prospective employee.
yowlingcat 6y ago
The system is functioning as designed. But if you're implying that it can't be improved then I don't know if I agree with that. For instance, it might be possible that savvy candidates use interviews to vet whether they want to work there, because for every offer they get, there are hundreds more they could get (and often up to a dozen that they do get). If that is the case, then it's possible that a broken system could end up coming into existence in a company that: - has a revolving door of expensive attrition - loses all the good talent so that ones that remain aren't good at their jobs - slowly ossifies into place - can't seem to get things done - eventually loses its customers - loses market position, growth and relevance - becomes a bankrupted carcass eventually stripped for parts by a distressed asset firm Sounds familiar? I agree that if you fail to adapt to the system, there are hundreds willing to take your place. But where we may disagree is whether I'd envy any of them. I'll tell you one thing, though -- I've never had to sacrifice my career trajectory to just put up with this kind of nonsense. In fact, the places I've had to put up with it the most are the places where I've grown the least and leaving opened up a much better opportunity afterwards.

jarjoura 6y ago

I disagree, the OP reads as genuinely trying to help people pass interviews by giving them some insights. Even if the information may seem obvious to you, or annoying or elitist, or whatever, as long as it's valuable to some readers, then his effort is worth it. At the end of the day, all tech companies compete with each other to hire people who exhibit a growth mindset and show strong signs of perseverance. That's why they give you challenges to overcome on the spot. Past experience will help you start higher-up on the ladder, if you get an offer, but it won't mean crap if you can't demonstrate your willingness to push through the challenges. You're only holding yourself back if you dismiss advice instead of welcoming any and all tips and tricks to improving your chances.