4 ms·

Instead of treating interviews like an exam where you measure someone based on number of correct answers, use it to gauge their problem solving ability. Can the

Instead of treating interviews like an exam where you measure someone based on number of correct answers, use it to gauge their problem solving ability. Can the candidate articulate their thought process? Is there some evidence of strong fundamental knowledge/theory being applied naturally in that process? As an interviewer, I don't really care if a candidate happened to know the answer to an algorithmic puzzle or has a deep knowledge of academic minutia. I want to know three things: can this person reliably and meaningfully solve technical problems, can they communicate their findings to the team, and finally – do they strive to learn the details or do they just skim/superficially solve problems? Obviously expertise in a job-relevant domain is great too - but I'd consider it a bonus; the difference between a senior and a junior/mid-level hire.

starky 6y ago
I like your description of the 3 things you want to evaluate. It is pretty similar to what I try to evaluate. The first two are part of a quiz we give candidates, it has a couple basic questions on it that simply require them to logically think through a problem they likely haven't seen before and provide feedback. I don't even care if the answers are correct, but they should be able to explain their thought process and reasoning clearly in a couple followup questions. Bonus points to candidates that ask for feedback on their answer. For the last point, during the interview I get the candidate to describe a project at a recent workplace, once they have given the description, I'll ask questions to see if they evaluate and learn from their previous work. I am constantly shocked at how many candidates I interview that fail one or more parts of this spectacularly (especially senior level candidates), to the point where I question whether evaluating candidates these ways is unfair, but also knowing that if someone doesn't do this they likely are going to fail when given a problem without an obvious answer.

starky 6y ago

I like your description of the 3 things you want to evaluate. It is pretty similar to what I try to evaluate. The first two are part of a quiz we give candidates, it has a couple basic questions on it that simply require them to logically think through a problem they likely haven't seen before and provide feedback. I don't even care if the answers are correct, but they should be able to explain their thought process and reasoning clearly in a couple followup questions. Bonus points to candidates that ask for feedback on their answer. For the last point, during the interview I get the candidate to describe a project at a recent workplace, once they have given the description, I'll ask questions to see if they evaluate and learn from their previous work. I am constantly shocked at how many candidates I interview that fail one or more parts of this spectacularly (especially senior level candidates), to the point where I question whether evaluating candidates these ways is unfair, but also knowing that if someone doesn't do this they likely are going to fail when given a problem without an obvious answer.