3 ms·

I think one of the main points of the article that the discussion here misses is that whiteboard interviews can be seen two ways: as an 'exam' where there's a '

by cm277 6y ago

I think one of the main points of the article that the discussion here misses is that whiteboard interviews can be seen two ways: as an 'exam' where there's a 'right' way to behave/solve the problem and as a 'simulation' where the point is to simulate a situation of working/problem solving with the candidate. If the interview is explicitly run as a simulation, where the hiring team looks for good behaviors (both in attitude and in problem-solving) and not necessarily good outcomes, whiteboard interviews work well, because: a) they scale and, b) they can actually be good simulations of a high-stress environment. The downsides are that they become subjective, unless the hiring team is experienced/has been trained well.

bulatb 6y ago
I want to be clear that by "the standard whiteboard interview" I mean a certain format that's been roughly standardized at FAANG and copied out-of-context by a major chunk of the industry. It's a starter question, then a harder question, then another if there's time; each is answered with an algorithm written on the board in mostly-valid code. Your on-site loop (pre-2020) is four to six 1-hour sessions back to back, plus a lunch break. The only work environment it simulates is one where every feature is developed in a 15 minute sprint that's literally overseen (like over your shoulder) by a boss who's put you on a PIP; there's no collaboration and no google; nothing is expected or allowed from you except a working output; and you're fired if there's any issue raised in code review. It's more like an exam, but it's not even that: exams are meant to see what you know. The whiteboard interview just offers you as many ways to fail as possible and sees if you make it. I wouldn't really say it's either one. I hesitate to call it hazing, but... as a trial to prove your dedication to the group by doing arbitrary and unpleasant things, for some it feels similar.

by cm277 6y ago

bulatb 6y ago

I want to be clear that by "the standard whiteboard interview" I mean a certain format that's been roughly standardized at FAANG and copied out-of-context by a major chunk of the industry. It's a starter question, then a harder question, then another if there's time; each is answered with an algorithm written on the board in mostly-valid code. Your on-site loop (pre-2020) is four to six 1-hour sessions back to back, plus a lunch break. The only work environment it simulates is one where every feature is developed in a 15 minute sprint that's literally overseen (like over your shoulder) by a boss who's put you on a PIP; there's no collaboration and no google; nothing is expected or allowed from you except a working output; and you're fired if there's any issue raised in code review. It's more like an exam, but it's not even that: exams are meant to see what you know. The whiteboard interview just offers you as many ways to fail as possible and sees if you make it. I wouldn't really say it's either one. I hesitate to call it hazing, but... as a trial to prove your dedication to the group by doing arbitrary and unpleasant things, for some it feels similar.