10 ms·
I've heard a variant of this repeatedly. A company justifies technical exam style interviews on the grounds that many people who look good on paper "can't code"
by geebee 6y ago
I've heard a variant of this repeatedly. A company justifies technical exam style interviews on the grounds that many people who look good on paper "can't code". Meaning, can't program fizz buzz. Can't write a method or function. Can't write a loop, or an if/else conditional.
But I can do all these things. I've gotten bounced from my interviews because (this was the official reason, anyway) I didn't get far enough with the coding in finding all matching subtrees in a binary tree, in 45 minutes, at the whiteboard.
Companies should feel free to hire based on my ability to do this, they should not say they were just testing basic things like lists, loops, and conditionals, or even basic data structures and algorithms like binary trees or hash maps. These exams go way beyond that.
This may not be the case for all, and it sounds like it is not the case for your process. But in the broader industry practice, I smell a motte-and-bailey fallacy here.
- dhairya 6y agoIn our case our its based on our actual interview experience with candidates. We've been actively evolving our process and calibrating expectation based on the candidates that have come in. We've actually simplified the interview question considerably (as I mentioned the solution doesn't even require you write new logic, you can refactor existing logic that's provided). But we still see candidates struggle with the basics. To be fair this could also be a reflection on our ability to read resumes and experiences and our initial phone screen. But it is hard. My first job was at fortune 50 company, you could have the title of senior software engineer and not write a single line of code as part of your job. That being said i don't won't diminish your experiences. This is just our experience from the other side of the table. Also we don't have an HR department (we're a small startup). The interviews are conducted by engineers in the company and we try our best to empathize with candidates and be conscious of creating an interview process that we'd feel comfortable being a part of as well.
- wendyshu 6y agoI don't see how this addresses geebee's point -- what makes you so sure struggling on programming puzzles implies incompetence on the job?
- dhairya 6y agowe're not asking programming puzzles. i described our process above. struggling to define a function and basic code comprehension (e.g. tracing a for loop that traverses a json object in candidate's preferred language) is a strong signal that candidate is not a good fit a mid to senior level for us. If it was a junior level position, sure you can learn on the job.
- wendyshu 6y agoHow do you know that?
- dhairya 6y agoin our case, the problem is a highly simplified version of functionality in our code base and is close to being representative of work they'd be doing if hired. i actually don't disagree with the prior poster. Technical interviews are highly variable and it's frustrating to go through poor interview processes. I've got bad interview stories as well. Being on the other side of table now, we're always interested in learning about better approaches hiring. Would love hear what has worked well for others.