4 ms·

Empirical data that it works pretty well? I think the fact that this has been the de facto way of interviewing at the top tech companies during the time that te

by pb7 6y ago

Empirical data that it works pretty well? I think the fact that this has been the de facto way of interviewing at the top tech companies during the time that tech has absolutely exploded in ways never seen before, I'd say yeah, it's working pretty well. I think you're seeking an explanation where one is not owed. If it wasn't working well, it would be changed, just like the brain teaser questions of the early 2000s pioneered by Google. And look, I get it, it's frustrating. I share in that frustration as someone that wants to switch companies but knows that I will have to put in the effort outside of work to prepare for that. But I still think the process is much more meritocratic and predictable than virtually every other industry.

jolux 6y ago
> I think you're seeking an explanation where one is not owed. Forgive my curiosity and desire to make things better. > If it wasn't working well, it would be changed, just like the brain teaser questions of the early 2000s pioneered by Google. This is a gigantic assumption, though. Tech has been exploding for a long time and basically all companies are ravenous for engineering talent. It’s not at all clear to me that this interviewing process is the cause of this growth or in spite of it. If I had to guess I would bet they’re wholly unrelated. > And look, I get it, it's frustrating. I share in that frustration as someone that wants to switch companies but knows that I will have to put in the effort outside of work to prepare for that. I have no problem passing these interviews, I just think they’re silly. Their prevalence in the industry frustrates me because I think they give an unrealistic portrayal of what’s important in software engineering. But then again my greatest area of expertise is legacy software maintenance, which is the work that nobody else wants to do. > But I still think the process is much more meritocratic and predictable than virtually every other industry. That’s an extremely low bar. My favorite approach that I’ve seen is Latacora’s hiring process, in which they give you a work sample problem that can be graded quantitatively in stages as well as any prep materials that you need for it.

by pb7 6y ago

jolux 6y ago

> I think you're seeking an explanation where one is not owed. Forgive my curiosity and desire to make things better. > If it wasn't working well, it would be changed, just like the brain teaser questions of the early 2000s pioneered by Google. This is a gigantic assumption, though. Tech has been exploding for a long time and basically all companies are ravenous for engineering talent. It’s not at all clear to me that this interviewing process is the cause of this growth or in spite of it. If I had to guess I would bet they’re wholly unrelated. > And look, I get it, it's frustrating. I share in that frustration as someone that wants to switch companies but knows that I will have to put in the effort outside of work to prepare for that. I have no problem passing these interviews, I just think they’re silly. Their prevalence in the industry frustrates me because I think they give an unrealistic portrayal of what’s important in software engineering. But then again my greatest area of expertise is legacy software maintenance, which is the work that nobody else wants to do. > But I still think the process is much more meritocratic and predictable than virtually every other industry. That’s an extremely low bar. My favorite approach that I’ve seen is Latacora’s hiring process, in which they give you a work sample problem that can be graded quantitatively in stages as well as any prep materials that you need for it.