7 ms·

I've had this discussion during interviews as a disarming technique. Candidates will sometimes express nervousness at the beginning and say stuff like "I'm terr

I've had this discussion during interviews as a disarming technique. Candidates will sometimes express nervousness at the beginning and say stuff like "I'm terrible at interviews" or "it's been a while since I've had to do this kind of programming," and I try to respond by making it clear that I understand that the whiteboard coding has very little in common with the actual job and that I'm not judging them, so when I dutifully proceed to ask them to invert a linked list, they hopefully don't feel as judged when they approach the problem. Seems to help at least a bit. Mind you, I'd prefer NOT asking those questions, but I'm not empowered to make that change at my workplace and I'm honestly not sure what I'd replace it with if I were.

a_wild_dandan 6y ago
> I'm honestly not sure what I'd replace it with if I were. Just to theorize: how about having the interviewee write a narrowly scoped toy project that's relevant to the position? (Edit: On site, as a replacement for white boarding.) A JS to-do app for a front-end engineer, for instance. Just a short thing you and the candidate can attack together in a couple hours. The candidate can write "normal" code, google things, clarify requirements, use their own architecture/patterns/style to reach the solution, etc. You could even add/change a requirement midway through the session, too. That would be realistic, and test for brittleness (and maybe be mean). I don't interview people, so this might be hopelessly naive, or maybe untenable for some types of positions. But that interview process strikes me as a far more representative microcosm of an actual job than regurgitating LeetCode solutions or hardcore algo arcana.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  > Just a short thing you and the candidate can attack together in a couple hours Unless your hiring pipeline is absolutely perfect (you pretty much get great candidates all the time and almost no bad ones) this doesn't scale at all.
  - a_wild_dandan 6y ago
    Could you explain why it scales worse than current typical interview sessions?
    - hnrodey 6y ago
      On one hand, it would currently double the time commitment from me (and my interviewing peers) per candidate. That would be a tough pill to swallow. Interview processes are designed mostly for the employer, not the candidate. That's just the reality.
    - decafninja 6y ago
      Because a candidate can grind leetcode and prepare for a huge number of companies. On the other hand, something like a homework assignment is typically good for a single company, and if you fail, it's time and effort and emotional energy down the toilet.
      - 908B64B197 6y ago
        Homework are great if you: Are extremely prestigious or have compensation clearly above market rates. Candidates only have so much time to dedicate to homework so they will sort companies and work on homework assignments from top to bottom. Homework are easy to grade (some of that can be automated!) and low commitment from the employer side. But that low commitment sends a signal that the candidate isn't really valued. Having an on-site with engineers sends a much better signal as it tells the candidate he's worthy of discussing with a real engineer on company time rather than some gradings software. Of course, if your recruiting pipeline is very poor (low signal to noise ratio, majority of applicants can't code) then sure, weed out with a homework assignment.
        decafninja 6y ago
        Agree 100%. I've decided to just reject any company that requires a homework assignment unless it's a FAANG or nearly FAANG level of prestige and/or comp. Otherwise, it really is a waste of time when there are many, many, companies that do not require homework.
- city41 6y ago
  I worked at a company that did this. This company always pair programmed. So the interview took place at a pairing station. We gave the candidate a choice of about 10 toy problems to solve, and then we coded for 2 hours. They could use Google, their preferred IDE, whatever they wanted. Of all the companies I have worked at, this was by far my favorite interviewing technique. But, I think it works best when you pair with the candidate. So if pairing at your company is not done, it might not be a good fit.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> I'm not judging them I don't understand - what is the point of you interviewing them if you aren't there to judge them? What are you doing it for then?
- hnrodey 6y ago
  Trying to understand their thought process, is the candidate coachable, can the candidate accept feedback, does the candidate at least understand the underlying ideas, etc. The more prestigious the employer then the less forgiving they are on your shortcomings.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > is the candidate coachable, can the candidate accept feedback, does the candidate at least understand the underlying ideas ...isn't that judging? Making a judgement on whether a candidate is coachable is judging isn't it?
    - hnrodey 6y ago
      Apologies are due, sir. Two things happened. First, I hastily read through the question and rushed my response. Second, just a few minutes prior I finished a workout and was quite exasperated. The use of the term "not judging" is a bit strange, without further context.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      The word "judging" has multiple variant meanings. It is being used to mean two different things in this subthread. Judging whether a candidate is coachable, their thought processes relevant to the job, understands the ideas etc is what the interview is for, you're right. But "I'm not judging" doesn't refer to that. It refers instead to the concept in the word "judgemental". Some definitions of that are "having or displaying an overly critical point of view" and "thinking, speaking, or behaving in a manner that reflects a critical and condemnatory point of view".
- closeparen 6y ago

a_wild_dandan 6y ago

> I'm honestly not sure what I'd replace it with if I were. Just to theorize: how about having the interviewee write a narrowly scoped toy project that's relevant to the position? (Edit: On site, as a replacement for white boarding.) A JS to-do app for a front-end engineer, for instance. Just a short thing you and the candidate can attack together in a couple hours. The candidate can write "normal" code, google things, clarify requirements, use their own architecture/patterns/style to reach the solution, etc. You could even add/change a requirement midway through the session, too. That would be realistic, and test for brittleness (and maybe be mean). I don't interview people, so this might be hopelessly naive, or maybe untenable for some types of positions. But that interview process strikes me as a far more representative microcosm of an actual job than regurgitating LeetCode solutions or hardcore algo arcana.

908B64B197 6y ago
> Just a short thing you and the candidate can attack together in a couple hours Unless your hiring pipeline is absolutely perfect (you pretty much get great candidates all the time and almost no bad ones) this doesn't scale at all.
- a_wild_dandan 6y ago
  Could you explain why it scales worse than current typical interview sessions?
  - hnrodey 6y ago
    On one hand, it would currently double the time commitment from me (and my interviewing peers) per candidate. That would be a tough pill to swallow. Interview processes are designed mostly for the employer, not the candidate. That's just the reality.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    Because a candidate can grind leetcode and prepare for a huge number of companies. On the other hand, something like a homework assignment is typically good for a single company, and if you fail, it's time and effort and emotional energy down the toilet.
    - 908B64B197 6y ago
      Homework are great if you: Are extremely prestigious or have compensation clearly above market rates. Candidates only have so much time to dedicate to homework so they will sort companies and work on homework assignments from top to bottom. Homework are easy to grade (some of that can be automated!) and low commitment from the employer side. But that low commitment sends a signal that the candidate isn't really valued. Having an on-site with engineers sends a much better signal as it tells the candidate he's worthy of discussing with a real engineer on company time rather than some gradings software. Of course, if your recruiting pipeline is very poor (low signal to noise ratio, majority of applicants can't code) then sure, weed out with a homework assignment.
      - decafninja 6y ago
        Agree 100%. I've decided to just reject any company that requires a homework assignment unless it's a FAANG or nearly FAANG level of prestige and/or comp. Otherwise, it really is a waste of time when there are many, many, companies that do not require homework.
city41 6y ago
I worked at a company that did this. This company always pair programmed. So the interview took place at a pairing station. We gave the candidate a choice of about 10 toy problems to solve, and then we coded for 2 hours. They could use Google, their preferred IDE, whatever they wanted. Of all the companies I have worked at, this was by far my favorite interviewing technique. But, I think it works best when you pair with the candidate. So if pairing at your company is not done, it might not be a good fit.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> I'm not judging them I don't understand - what is the point of you interviewing them if you aren't there to judge them? What are you doing it for then?

hnrodey 6y ago
Trying to understand their thought process, is the candidate coachable, can the candidate accept feedback, does the candidate at least understand the underlying ideas, etc. The more prestigious the employer then the less forgiving they are on your shortcomings.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > is the candidate coachable, can the candidate accept feedback, does the candidate at least understand the underlying ideas ...isn't that judging? Making a judgement on whether a candidate is coachable is judging isn't it?
  - hnrodey 6y ago
    Apologies are due, sir. Two things happened. First, I hastily read through the question and rushed my response. Second, just a few minutes prior I finished a workout and was quite exasperated. The use of the term "not judging" is a bit strange, without further context.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    The word "judging" has multiple variant meanings. It is being used to mean two different things in this subthread. Judging whether a candidate is coachable, their thought processes relevant to the job, understands the ideas etc is what the interview is for, you're right. But "I'm not judging" doesn't refer to that. It refers instead to the concept in the word "judgemental". Some definitions of that are "having or displaying an overly critical point of view" and "thinking, speaking, or behaving in a manner that reflects a critical and condemnatory point of view".
closeparen 6y ago