3 ms·

I think this viewpoint is common from senior engineers but not entirely merited. (FWIW, I am also a senior engineer, and I have seen this play out from both si

I think this viewpoint is common from senior engineers but not entirely merited. (FWIW, I am also a senior engineer, and I have seen this play out from both sides of the table.) Sometimes folks overestimate their value as senior engineer for certain types of companies, and under-appreciate the risk companies take in hiring an employee. Large companies, for example, generally do not need yet another L6+ that cannot get their hands dirty. They usually have plenty of folks that fit that role already. Additionally, senior engineers are expected to mentor junior engineers, and doing so often requires whiteboard technical skills. I cannot tell you the number of L6/L7/L8 interviews I've done where it was clear the person had no idea how to write simple algorithms, or put together a basic design. They may be great (or not) at the job they have been doing for years, but that sort of information is not accessible to the interviewing company. If the skills existed, it is a red flag if the candidate let them languish. Or perhaps those skills never existed, and that's a very large risk the company ($100,000s/year) is taking, especially for companies (cough FANG cough) that have a "you must be smart if you made it here" attitude around letting people go. If one agrees to interview somewhere, it should come with the understanding that it is a mutual exchange. The company is not doing the interviewee a favor, and the interviewee is are not doing the company a favor. Both sides are expending work, which involves some tradeoffs and annoyances. As an interviewer, throwing in a technical question early is an easy sorting check to make early in the interview process before it gets into the nuanced details around role fit.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago
I have to head out for a bit, so can't write much, but I don't think we actually disagree. The point I was making is that in this organizing of the interview process we need to put figuring out whether there's a potential match before proceeding to the confrontational 'testing your skillz' phase. Otherwise we're just wasting time. And, to be honest, as a well paid senior engineer my time is pretty valuable. Doing a skills test and then finding that the job is not of interest to me is pretty frustrating.
user5994461 6y ago
L7/L8 positions are comparable to the director of a department with 100+ people underneath in a large company or the owners/executives at a smaller company. Of course people in these positions don't code, they couldn't be further away from developers. It's fine that FAANG want heads who can code AND run a department but it shouldn't come as a surprise that candidates don't match that.
- chris_va 6y ago
  There are different ladders with different hiring expectations (e.g. SWE and Eng manager). Regardless, a lot of leeway is given for code rustiness at these levels, but design skills are still important. Algorithmic skills are often still required (e.g. imagine you are hiring a senior dev into a Search Infrastructure group, do you want them to be rusty on algorithms?).
  - user5994461 6y ago
    > (e.g. imagine you are hiring a senior dev into a Search Infrastructure group, do you want them to be rusty on algorithms?). That's precisely the sort of things I hire for and I have mixed feeling about that :) First, infrastructure has a bazillion technical things to deal with between OS, systems, architecture, networking, hardware. Most of these are not even expected from software engineers so it seems disingenuous to make them a hard requirement for a management/lead position. Second, it's irrelevant to the job. Senior candidates will be mentoring younger developers, developing the team and the department, coordinating and working with other teams (potentially hostile), taking architecture decisions a thousand step above coding a loop, handling hiring and promotions, taking care of budgets and schedules, etc... they should be evaluated on that. People can't be perfect on technical aspects and soft skills and management. That's an impossible high bar. After seeing tens of candidates, some of whom would certainly have done the job just fine, yet all got rejected for one minor thing or another. I have mixed feelings about the interview process. Yes, being rusty on algorithms should not be a blocker for some roles.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago

I have to head out for a bit, so can't write much, but I don't think we actually disagree. The point I was making is that in this organizing of the interview process we need to put figuring out whether there's a potential match before proceeding to the confrontational 'testing your skillz' phase. Otherwise we're just wasting time. And, to be honest, as a well paid senior engineer my time is pretty valuable. Doing a skills test and then finding that the job is not of interest to me is pretty frustrating.

user5994461 6y ago

L7/L8 positions are comparable to the director of a department with 100+ people underneath in a large company or the owners/executives at a smaller company. Of course people in these positions don't code, they couldn't be further away from developers. It's fine that FAANG want heads who can code AND run a department but it shouldn't come as a surprise that candidates don't match that.

chris_va 6y ago
There are different ladders with different hiring expectations (e.g. SWE and Eng manager). Regardless, a lot of leeway is given for code rustiness at these levels, but design skills are still important. Algorithmic skills are often still required (e.g. imagine you are hiring a senior dev into a Search Infrastructure group, do you want them to be rusty on algorithms?).
- user5994461 6y ago
  > (e.g. imagine you are hiring a senior dev into a Search Infrastructure group, do you want them to be rusty on algorithms?). That's precisely the sort of things I hire for and I have mixed feeling about that :) First, infrastructure has a bazillion technical things to deal with between OS, systems, architecture, networking, hardware. Most of these are not even expected from software engineers so it seems disingenuous to make them a hard requirement for a management/lead position. Second, it's irrelevant to the job. Senior candidates will be mentoring younger developers, developing the team and the department, coordinating and working with other teams (potentially hostile), taking architecture decisions a thousand step above coding a loop, handling hiring and promotions, taking care of budgets and schedules, etc... they should be evaluated on that. People can't be perfect on technical aspects and soft skills and management. That's an impossible high bar. After seeing tens of candidates, some of whom would certainly have done the job just fine, yet all got rejected for one minor thing or another. I have mixed feelings about the interview process. Yes, being rusty on algorithms should not be a blocker for some roles.