5 ms·

Personally, I think these sort of approaches are the problem with the tech job market. We currently have a massive shortage in talent to do the job, yet complai

Personally, I think these sort of approaches are the problem with the tech job market. We currently have a massive shortage in talent to do the job, yet complains seem to think we need to prove we're worth their time when in realitiy there are more companies looking to hire than developers so the competition is not with developers with other developers for jobs but with companies for talent. So that is the first part I think is fundmentally wrong. I've literally had companies tell me people spend days on their tech test, I instantly told them I wouldn't be doing that tech test and if they wanted to test me I could come in again and they could give me a production issue to fix, code review, etc but any test would need to have a reasonable time limit. They never got back to me and honestly I'm really happy they didn't. The next part is the entire tech screening process. I remember back in the day when we used to just ask people if they could do FizzBuzz now we're looking at if they used an interface to wrap their ORM usage. That's something that can get picked up at code review and taught. Not everyone is going to code by default at the style of a company but they can learn to do the things the company wants. Then there is the obivous, lets test people for things they aren't going to do. Google and co made this the in thing and the fact we now have books upon books just designed so people who are good at tech can pass a tech interview is a sign in itself that there is something rotten. Hell, there was one guy that took almost a year off to study for the Google exam, err I mean interview. In a world where the shortage of tech employee means they're on the eligble for a visa list in pretty much every country in the world. I've literally had someone be failed on a test before they did far more than expected therefore didn't have time to finish the test. No, that's the person you 100% want. They exceeded expecations. I've made pretty much every mistake in interviewing others, I've had these mistakes while I was interviewing. I've come to realise what is important is, can they do the basic level programming required? If so get them in and if they really suck let them go during the trial period. Our worst developer at the company I work for interviewed amazingly, he falls asleep during meetings. A bunch of companies keep trying to improve the hiring in tech, the problem is, they are the problem.

bsder 6y ago
> Google and co made this the in thing The problem was "graph algorithms" used to be like "C pointer indirections"--a task that indicated that you were one notch above the average. Of course, once Google made this a metric, it lost all meaning. If you put a condition between someone and $500K, they WILL figure out how to convince you that they passed the condition.
thrt23049away 6y ago
"We currently have a massive shortage in talent to do the job" no way. i just cannot believe that's true. i'm based in the U.S and i'm currently interviewing ... and spending my evenings studying to be better prepared for upcoming interviews. they all do the same thing: crazy programming puzzles. i believe what's happening is that companies have become extremely choosy because there is a never-ending stream of candidates. they subject to insane technical interviews and reject good candidate after good candidate with the hope that maybe the next will be just a tiny bit better. And if not, well, there's more after that. i'm convinced that in 2020 the software engineering profession is absolutely, positively supersaturated. i'd say more, but i need to stop procrastinating and get back to the video about dynamic programming that i was taking notes on.
- polishdude20 6y ago
  Yes this. If the employers are acting as if engineers are a dime a dozen, then isn't it safe to assume that that's the case? I've been trying to get interviews as well and haven't got one yet.
  - jrumbut 6y ago
    It must be a regional/industry thing. I've had a former manager and colleague contact me out of the blue really desperate for staff. I've never gotten more recruiting spam, it's at double or triple the usual level. I was a new dev around 2008 and while there were software jobs around, fewer companies were willing to hire newbies. That could be playing out again.
  - recursive 6y ago
    Well, there's a slight difference. Candidates are a dime a dozen. In my opinion, from my perspective at my non-prestigious-employer, most candidates are not qualified.
- philplckthun 6y ago
  > "in talent to do the job." It's a matter of perspective as well though, so both sides are correct. "The job" here can talk about very different engineering roles and levels, which will have a different hiring pool by market and by saturation. From my own experience running interviews, even in the same "community's" hiring pool in the same location you can expect large differences depending on what position and skill set you're hiring for at that moment. I find it more worrying that over years I've seen that some engineers are attempting to optimise the interviewing process on their end. Obviously instead interviews should optimise to appeal to candidates and make the process equitable, quick, and accurate, without nonsense like coding challenges that don't relate to the job.
erklik 6y ago
> We currently have a massive shortage in talent to do the job This is not at all true for the entry level market. This might be case for mid-level or even seniors but the entry level market is so saturated that these tests are bound to be necessary to cull the pool in a sense.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
confidantlake 6y ago
We do not have a massive shortage of talent. I don't understand why people keep repeating this. If there were, interviews would be much easier. There wouldn't be this interviewing arms race.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  It comes from the number of jobs unfilled. And yes we do have this problem.
  - programmertote 6y ago
    I interviewed ~30 people total between 2018 and 2019, and I have to agree with you. There is no shortage of applicants. Just the shortage of qualified people. Side note - I do NOT use whiteboard technique in my interviews. I ask the candidates questions about the stuff they mention in their resumes and go deep in the technical discussion based on their responses (or I told them to walk me through one of their recent projects be it a work project or their side project). Using that 'simple' technique, you can easily filter out so many pretenders (as I'd like to call them, who have splendid resumes but little to back things up when grilled the details about their resumes).
    - neilv 6y ago
      This is the method I like to use as an interviewer. But asking about work projects specifically can be tricky, since you have to avoid any proprietary bits, to avoid any possible appearance of IP taint. If they don't have open source projects to dig into, hypothetical plausible system problems (not leetcode exercises, nor puzzles) are an option. You still have to watch out for people who know a lot of the right engineering things to say, and/or have done prep memorizing and drilling, rather than speaking from experience. (Example from one of the links in this thread, which had an example of a repetition flash card app, saying that UDP is connectionless. I don't know what good purpose would be served by having that info on a flash card for interview prep, other than to help someone who knows absolutely nothing about it to bluff their way through an interview that asks about it.)
rgossiaux 6y ago
>I remember back in the day when we used to just ask people if they could do FizzBuzz now we're looking at if they used an interface to wrap their ORM usage. That's something that can get picked up at code review and taught. Not everyone is going to code by default at the style of a company but they can learn to do the things the company wants. >Then there is the obivous, lets test people for things they aren't going to do. Google and co made this the in thing and the fact we now have books upon books just designed so people who are good at tech can pass a tech interview is a sign in itself that there is something rotten. So which is it? Should interviews be related to the work at the job or not? The Google type interviews evolved precisely from the philosophy in your first paragraph I quoted: that a lot of domain knowledge can be learned easily and that it was most important to test for more fundamental knowledge and abilities as well as general problem solving skills. Ultimately I think it's a lot easier to criticize the interview process than to come up with a good alternative, as well as establishing some basic criteria about what should be selected for and against. Not that I think Google style interviews are perfect or anything, mind.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  > So which is it? Should interviews be related to the work at the job or not? The Google type interviews evolved precisely from the philosophy in your first paragraph I quoted: that a lot of domain knowledge can be learned easily and that it was most important to test for more fundamental knowledge and abilities as well as general problem solving skills. If a company wants to test someones basic logical knowledge and fundmental programming knowledge, seems fair enough. There is a massive difference between writing FuzzBuzz and knowing the differences and uses from all the different sort algorithms and being to write optmisied computer science code. One tests programming and logical skills to a childs level (FuzzBuzz is a kids game), the other tests computer science skills to a high education level. If someone wants me to write a basic sorting function, then I would have no issues. But if someone expects me write an optimised quicksort function, nah. The list of the things these Google style questions ask is big enough thath the books for these interviews is quite big. (Lots of fun to read tho, highly recommend them for people wanting to nerd out) >Ultimately I think it's a lot easier to criticize the interview process than to come up with a good alternative, as well as establishing some basic criteria about what should be selected for and against. Not that I think Google style interviews are perfect or anything, mind. Well, I think I did come up with a good alternative, basic interview with work trials. You want to know how good they work, not how good they interview and the two actually are different skills.
polishdude20 6y ago
If companies are treating potential hires as if it's an employer's market, then isn't it safe to say that it IS an employer's market? Isn't this a sign that there is not a shortage of software developers?
zeroonetwothree 6y ago
There is a shortage of senior talent. For entry level I don’t think there is any shortage. And for seniors I do see much more flexibility in waiving these types of interview requirements.
- nilkn 6y ago
  Based on my experience, system design questions (in the spirit of [0]) are getting more popular/important for senior candidates. For instance, my M1/M2 interview at Facebook had only one coding round, but three system design rounds (one phone screen, two onsite), and I was explicitly told up-front that that coding round was weighed less than the others (though it still mattered and can filter you out). Personally, I thought this was shift in focus was pretty reasonable. I didn't prepare much at all for system design and relied on my real-world experience, which feels like how an interview for a senior candidate should go. [0] https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-primer https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-primer
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fspear 6y ago
https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-experience/942008/google-l4-zurich-sept-nov-2020-reject https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-experience/942008/goo... Its a given that if you are trying to get into faang you are going to need to spend a considerable amount of time trying to game the interview process by doing as many leetcode problems and mock interviews as you can before the interview. And then still there is no guarantee, even if you ace all rounds and pass all the coding challenges.

bsder 6y ago

> Google and co made this the in thing The problem was "graph algorithms" used to be like "C pointer indirections"--a task that indicated that you were one notch above the average. Of course, once Google made this a metric, it lost all meaning. If you put a condition between someone and $500K, they WILL figure out how to convince you that they passed the condition.

thrt23049away 6y ago

"We currently have a massive shortage in talent to do the job" no way. i just cannot believe that's true. i'm based in the U.S and i'm currently interviewing ... and spending my evenings studying to be better prepared for upcoming interviews. they all do the same thing: crazy programming puzzles. i believe what's happening is that companies have become extremely choosy because there is a never-ending stream of candidates. they subject to insane technical interviews and reject good candidate after good candidate with the hope that maybe the next will be just a tiny bit better. And if not, well, there's more after that. i'm convinced that in 2020 the software engineering profession is absolutely, positively supersaturated. i'd say more, but i need to stop procrastinating and get back to the video about dynamic programming that i was taking notes on.

polishdude20 6y ago
Yes this. If the employers are acting as if engineers are a dime a dozen, then isn't it safe to assume that that's the case? I've been trying to get interviews as well and haven't got one yet.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  It must be a regional/industry thing. I've had a former manager and colleague contact me out of the blue really desperate for staff. I've never gotten more recruiting spam, it's at double or triple the usual level. I was a new dev around 2008 and while there were software jobs around, fewer companies were willing to hire newbies. That could be playing out again.
- recursive 6y ago
  Well, there's a slight difference. Candidates are a dime a dozen. In my opinion, from my perspective at my non-prestigious-employer, most candidates are not qualified.
philplckthun 6y ago
> "in talent to do the job." It's a matter of perspective as well though, so both sides are correct. "The job" here can talk about very different engineering roles and levels, which will have a different hiring pool by market and by saturation. From my own experience running interviews, even in the same "community's" hiring pool in the same location you can expect large differences depending on what position and skill set you're hiring for at that moment. I find it more worrying that over years I've seen that some engineers are attempting to optimise the interviewing process on their end. Obviously instead interviews should optimise to appeal to candidates and make the process equitable, quick, and accurate, without nonsense like coding challenges that don't relate to the job.

erklik 6y ago

> We currently have a massive shortage in talent to do the job This is not at all true for the entry level market. This might be case for mid-level or even seniors but the entry level market is so saturated that these tests are bound to be necessary to cull the pool in a sense.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

confidantlake 6y ago

We do not have a massive shortage of talent. I don't understand why people keep repeating this. If there were, interviews would be much easier. There wouldn't be this interviewing arms race.

that_guy_iain 6y ago
It comes from the number of jobs unfilled. And yes we do have this problem.
- programmertote 6y ago
  I interviewed ~30 people total between 2018 and 2019, and I have to agree with you. There is no shortage of applicants. Just the shortage of qualified people. Side note - I do NOT use whiteboard technique in my interviews. I ask the candidates questions about the stuff they mention in their resumes and go deep in the technical discussion based on their responses (or I told them to walk me through one of their recent projects be it a work project or their side project). Using that 'simple' technique, you can easily filter out so many pretenders (as I'd like to call them, who have splendid resumes but little to back things up when grilled the details about their resumes).
  - neilv 6y ago
    This is the method I like to use as an interviewer. But asking about work projects specifically can be tricky, since you have to avoid any proprietary bits, to avoid any possible appearance of IP taint. If they don't have open source projects to dig into, hypothetical plausible system problems (not leetcode exercises, nor puzzles) are an option. You still have to watch out for people who know a lot of the right engineering things to say, and/or have done prep memorizing and drilling, rather than speaking from experience. (Example from one of the links in this thread, which had an example of a repetition flash card app, saying that UDP is connectionless. I don't know what good purpose would be served by having that info on a flash card for interview prep, other than to help someone who knows absolutely nothing about it to bluff their way through an interview that asks about it.)

rgossiaux 6y ago

>I remember back in the day when we used to just ask people if they could do FizzBuzz now we're looking at if they used an interface to wrap their ORM usage. That's something that can get picked up at code review and taught. Not everyone is going to code by default at the style of a company but they can learn to do the things the company wants. >Then there is the obivous, lets test people for things they aren't going to do. Google and co made this the in thing and the fact we now have books upon books just designed so people who are good at tech can pass a tech interview is a sign in itself that there is something rotten. So which is it? Should interviews be related to the work at the job or not? The Google type interviews evolved precisely from the philosophy in your first paragraph I quoted: that a lot of domain knowledge can be learned easily and that it was most important to test for more fundamental knowledge and abilities as well as general problem solving skills. Ultimately I think it's a lot easier to criticize the interview process than to come up with a good alternative, as well as establishing some basic criteria about what should be selected for and against. Not that I think Google style interviews are perfect or anything, mind.

that_guy_iain 6y ago
> So which is it? Should interviews be related to the work at the job or not? The Google type interviews evolved precisely from the philosophy in your first paragraph I quoted: that a lot of domain knowledge can be learned easily and that it was most important to test for more fundamental knowledge and abilities as well as general problem solving skills. If a company wants to test someones basic logical knowledge and fundmental programming knowledge, seems fair enough. There is a massive difference between writing FuzzBuzz and knowing the differences and uses from all the different sort algorithms and being to write optmisied computer science code. One tests programming and logical skills to a childs level (FuzzBuzz is a kids game), the other tests computer science skills to a high education level. If someone wants me to write a basic sorting function, then I would have no issues. But if someone expects me write an optimised quicksort function, nah. The list of the things these Google style questions ask is big enough thath the books for these interviews is quite big. (Lots of fun to read tho, highly recommend them for people wanting to nerd out) >Ultimately I think it's a lot easier to criticize the interview process than to come up with a good alternative, as well as establishing some basic criteria about what should be selected for and against. Not that I think Google style interviews are perfect or anything, mind. Well, I think I did come up with a good alternative, basic interview with work trials. You want to know how good they work, not how good they interview and the two actually are different skills.

polishdude20 6y ago

If companies are treating potential hires as if it's an employer's market, then isn't it safe to say that it IS an employer's market? Isn't this a sign that there is not a shortage of software developers?

zeroonetwothree 6y ago

There is a shortage of senior talent. For entry level I don’t think there is any shortage. And for seniors I do see much more flexibility in waiving these types of interview requirements.

nilkn 6y ago
Based on my experience, system design questions (in the spirit of [0]) are getting more popular/important for senior candidates. For instance, my M1/M2 interview at Facebook had only one coding round, but three system design rounds (one phone screen, two onsite), and I was explicitly told up-front that that coding round was weighed less than the others (though it still mattered and can filter you out). Personally, I thought this was shift in focus was pretty reasonable. I didn't prepare much at all for system design and relied on my real-world experience, which feels like how an interview for a senior candidate should go. [0] https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-primer https://github.com/donnemartin/system-design-primer

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fspear 6y ago

https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-experience/942008/google-l4-zurich-sept-nov-2020-reject https://leetcode.com/discuss/interview-experience/942008/goo... Its a given that if you are trying to get into faang you are going to need to spend a considerable amount of time trying to game the interview process by doing as many leetcode problems and mock interviews as you can before the interview. And then still there is no guarantee, even if you ace all rounds and pass all the coding challenges.