5 ms·

why do you expect to pass an interview without preparing for the interview?

Ma8ee 6y ago
Maybe in the hope that the interview would reflect the actual work that needs to be done, which my education and previous work experience have prepared me very well for. Then I'm happy to prepare for the interview in the sense that I try to learn as much as possible about the company and the people I'm going to meet.
- karolist 6y ago
  Copying this response from my older comment: The rampup at FAANG can be brutal and you'd be doing lots of learning even after getting in. The leetcode style interviews are designed to select people capable of studying and materialising broad problems in depth and scope under time constraints. They are also objective and can't really be faked nor you can talk your way in like in most banking/finance IT jobs. I was of similar opinion at some point but these realisations made me change my mind and I've come to like leetcode interviews. But I also think they only make sense in FAANG scoped companies where all the stack is proprietary. Small companies or companies using opensource tools don't really have this rampup and are doing such interviews mostly because others (FAANG) do it.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    They select people who have a lot of discretionary time. I guess that is ok, if you want an organisation consisting mostly of young people without family that are happy to work weekends and evenings. I’m very happy to be in a position where I can do most learning during company time, and then spend my free time with my wife and kids.
    - karolist 6y ago
      I can definitely agree, IT industry sucks in the sense that you're sort of expected to always be learning to stay relevant in the job market, and on your own time at that. We don't expect dentists or lawyers to have their job be their hobby but in IT... Here we are.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    The assumption that leetcode is the only way to know if people have learning capabilities is weird. My job is a semi niche industry (semiconductor manufacturing equipment), most people who enter here need to go through a brutal ramp up. There are ways to assess learning ability without asking people to make interview preparation their part time job. Edit: Anecdote time. The best interview I ever had was for my current job. It was a hour long where they gave me 1 design problem to solve. It was an open problem but the interviewer kept introducing new information. "Lets say the speed of stage cannot exceed x", "what if the wafer cannot take the stresses you will generate?", etc. I think that showed both my design thinking and the ability to assimilate new information in my mental model.
    - karolist 6y ago
      FAANG typically has 3-6 30-50 minute back to back interviews, the style of interview where they ask open ended questions is almost always included too...the leet code stuff is in addition to that. I can agree it's not ideal but these big companies do it for a reason and apparently it works for them.
      - newswasboring 6y ago
        If design thinking can be assessed through open ended design questions, what is leetcode adding? Except proficiency in leetcode?
  - Salgat 6y ago
    The selection is a filter for people who are willing to pour massive amounts of free time into preparing for a small subset of companies. It's a great filter if you want someone who obsessively wants to work for you and is willing to sacrifice a significant amount of their personal time for it, but not so great a filter of their competence beyond a basic level. Leetcode is a memorization/trivia exercise, not a reflection of someone's deep understanding of proper coding practices, software architecture, and ability optimize in real world cases (since in the real world you can use google and use whatever libraries you want).
newswasboring 6y ago
I think you are genuinely curious. The point here is, people are confident that they can do the job, just can't pass the interview. The purpose of the interview is to select someone to do the job, not to pass the interview. "Preparing for the interview" is chasing the wrong KPI for both parties. Companies don't want someone who can pass the interview, they want someone who can do the job, they are not the same things.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  However confident people are hat they can do the job the point of the interview is to convince the recruiters. That's the game and the recruiting company sets the rules.
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    Thats the point though. The recruiting company rules seem to be suboptimal and infact optimizing for something unrelated to that job. Edit: Fun example. Its like recruiting companies are trying to hire for the next big chess tournament and their criteria is how fast someone can win practice end game scenarios. It might seem fine on the surface, but the truth is end game is only 10% of the game.
  - musingsole 6y ago
    > to convince the recruiters. The employer is the one with a skills need. Arguably, I'm in need of resources. However, coding shops are a dime a dozen. I know I can build and ship software. I've proven it to get where I am today. I'm not too interested in proving it to someone who will forget my name in a week. I've also proven I can lazily apply to places, ignore interviews with this coding challenge mess, and pay attention to the shops that actually talk to me about my strengths and their needs before anyone opens a CLI. So, is there a STEM shortage? If yes, then the recruiters and companies are the ones hurt by the 'convince the recruiters' mindset. If there isn't, then I'm hurt by being less competitive. Who knows what the future will look like, but despite all the language and shenanigans to the contrary, I know my company needs me more than I need it.

Maybe in the hope that the interview would reflect the actual work that needs to be done, which my education and previous work experience have prepared me very well for. Then I'm happy to prepare for the interview in the sense that I try to learn as much as possible about the company and the people I'm going to meet.

karolist 6y ago
Copying this response from my older comment: The rampup at FAANG can be brutal and you'd be doing lots of learning even after getting in. The leetcode style interviews are designed to select people capable of studying and materialising broad problems in depth and scope under time constraints. They are also objective and can't really be faked nor you can talk your way in like in most banking/finance IT jobs. I was of similar opinion at some point but these realisations made me change my mind and I've come to like leetcode interviews. But I also think they only make sense in FAANG scoped companies where all the stack is proprietary. Small companies or companies using opensource tools don't really have this rampup and are doing such interviews mostly because others (FAANG) do it.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  They select people who have a lot of discretionary time. I guess that is ok, if you want an organisation consisting mostly of young people without family that are happy to work weekends and evenings. I’m very happy to be in a position where I can do most learning during company time, and then spend my free time with my wife and kids.
  - karolist 6y ago
    I can definitely agree, IT industry sucks in the sense that you're sort of expected to always be learning to stay relevant in the job market, and on your own time at that. We don't expect dentists or lawyers to have their job be their hobby but in IT... Here we are.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  The assumption that leetcode is the only way to know if people have learning capabilities is weird. My job is a semi niche industry (semiconductor manufacturing equipment), most people who enter here need to go through a brutal ramp up. There are ways to assess learning ability without asking people to make interview preparation their part time job. Edit: Anecdote time. The best interview I ever had was for my current job. It was a hour long where they gave me 1 design problem to solve. It was an open problem but the interviewer kept introducing new information. "Lets say the speed of stage cannot exceed x", "what if the wafer cannot take the stresses you will generate?", etc. I think that showed both my design thinking and the ability to assimilate new information in my mental model.
  - karolist 6y ago
    FAANG typically has 3-6 30-50 minute back to back interviews, the style of interview where they ask open ended questions is almost always included too...the leet code stuff is in addition to that. I can agree it's not ideal but these big companies do it for a reason and apparently it works for them.
    - newswasboring 6y ago
      If design thinking can be assessed through open ended design questions, what is leetcode adding? Except proficiency in leetcode?
- Salgat 6y ago
  The selection is a filter for people who are willing to pour massive amounts of free time into preparing for a small subset of companies. It's a great filter if you want someone who obsessively wants to work for you and is willing to sacrifice a significant amount of their personal time for it, but not so great a filter of their competence beyond a basic level. Leetcode is a memorization/trivia exercise, not a reflection of someone's deep understanding of proper coding practices, software architecture, and ability optimize in real world cases (since in the real world you can use google and use whatever libraries you want).

newswasboring 6y ago

I think you are genuinely curious. The point here is, people are confident that they can do the job, just can't pass the interview. The purpose of the interview is to select someone to do the job, not to pass the interview. "Preparing for the interview" is chasing the wrong KPI for both parties. Companies don't want someone who can pass the interview, they want someone who can do the job, they are not the same things.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
However confident people are hat they can do the job the point of the interview is to convince the recruiters. That's the game and the recruiting company sets the rules.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  Thats the point though. The recruiting company rules seem to be suboptimal and infact optimizing for something unrelated to that job. Edit: Fun example. Its like recruiting companies are trying to hire for the next big chess tournament and their criteria is how fast someone can win practice end game scenarios. It might seem fine on the surface, but the truth is end game is only 10% of the game.
- musingsole 6y ago
  > to convince the recruiters. The employer is the one with a skills need. Arguably, I'm in need of resources. However, coding shops are a dime a dozen. I know I can build and ship software. I've proven it to get where I am today. I'm not too interested in proving it to someone who will forget my name in a week. I've also proven I can lazily apply to places, ignore interviews with this coding challenge mess, and pay attention to the shops that actually talk to me about my strengths and their needs before anyone opens a CLI. So, is there a STEM shortage? If yes, then the recruiters and companies are the ones hurt by the 'convince the recruiters' mindset. If there isn't, then I'm hurt by being less competitive. Who knows what the future will look like, but despite all the language and shenanigans to the contrary, I know my company needs me more than I need it.