3 ms·

> If someone has decent problem solving and analytical skills, can understand the problem domain and has the capacity to learn a new language/framework/construc

> If someone has decent problem solving and analytical skills, can understand the problem domain and has the capacity to learn a new language/framework/construct in a short period of time (which frankly most of us can, and do with frightening regularity), unless you have something miraculously niche and technical, they're capable of doing the job. Agreed. And this was how hiring was done up until about 15, 20 years ago. For example, if you knew C++ they figured you could pick up Java. Or if you knew Perl, you could be assumed to be able to pick up Ruby or Python. But in recent years that's not been the case - you mostly get screened out well prior to any human seeing your resume if you don't have all the right buzzwords. Hopefully the tightening job market with companies (supposedly) having trouble finding people will get us back to more sane hiring practices.

kh_hk 5y ago
I beg to differ on that. On my experience, both interviewing and being interviewed, capacity to learn and adapt to different languages and proven experience of having done that lifts the bar significally and accounts for most of the tecnical requirements, the rest being just practical knowledge or solid fundamentals. For sure there will be places on which the person weeding out resumes might miss that a competent programmer on most interpreted languages can jump between them and get up to speed pretty quick. Such places I would avoid anyway. At least on my echo chamber, I thought these were on the minority nowadays?
908B64B197 5y ago
> Agreed. And this was how hiring was done up until about 15, 20 years ago. For example, if you knew C++ they figured you could pick up Java. Or if you knew Perl, you could be assumed to be able to pick up Ruby or Python. That's why FAANG still do whiteboard/algorithm questions. If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good.
- balabaster 5y ago
  This is how I interview as well. Though I usually have a fairly good idea who I want based on my network before HR ever get involved.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > That's why FAANG still do whiteboard/algorithm questions. > If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good. I see the idea, and I try to focus interviews on 'show, don't tell', but is there research supporting better outcomes?
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > is there research supporting better outcomes? Sadly it's all empirical.
    - kozd 5y ago
      Since when is research not considered empirical?
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      That's too bad. I was hoping for conjecture.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I see it as placement of the gatekeeping filter. Do you trust HR or the hiring team more to filter candidates? It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team. I essentially hired one guy I interviewed because he seemed intelligent and did motorcycle work on his own. Had some background in the specific subject, but I'd rather hire a demonstrated ability to learn & initiative. (Afaict, he's thriving and a great fit for the position)
    - 5y ago

kh_hk 5y ago

I beg to differ on that. On my experience, both interviewing and being interviewed, capacity to learn and adapt to different languages and proven experience of having done that lifts the bar significally and accounts for most of the tecnical requirements, the rest being just practical knowledge or solid fundamentals. For sure there will be places on which the person weeding out resumes might miss that a competent programmer on most interpreted languages can jump between them and get up to speed pretty quick. Such places I would avoid anyway. At least on my echo chamber, I thought these were on the minority nowadays?

908B64B197 5y ago

> Agreed. And this was how hiring was done up until about 15, 20 years ago. For example, if you knew C++ they figured you could pick up Java. Or if you knew Perl, you could be assumed to be able to pick up Ruby or Python. That's why FAANG still do whiteboard/algorithm questions. If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good.

balabaster 5y ago
This is how I interview as well. Though I usually have a fairly good idea who I want based on my network before HR ever get involved.
wolverine876 5y ago
> That's why FAANG still do whiteboard/algorithm questions. > If implemented properly you get a good idea of who can code and solve problems, and who can't. Of course, there are false positive and false negatives, but the signal to noise ratio is pretty good. I see the idea, and I try to focus interviews on 'show, don't tell', but is there research supporting better outcomes?
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > is there research supporting better outcomes? Sadly it's all empirical.
  - kozd 5y ago
    Since when is research not considered empirical?
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    That's too bad. I was hoping for conjecture.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I see it as placement of the gatekeeping filter. Do you trust HR or the hiring team more to filter candidates? It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team. I essentially hired one guy I interviewed because he seemed intelligent and did motorcycle work on his own. Had some background in the specific subject, but I'd rather hire a demonstrated ability to learn & initiative. (Afaict, he's thriving and a great fit for the position)
  - 5y ago