3 ms·

> 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 Per

> 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)
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > 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. Me too, and I respond similarly to information like that. But the #1 hiring bias is hiring people like yourself. It's possibly I am just falling victim to that bias.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team. Keywords are almost always pointless. I've seen extraordinary resumes that ticked all the boxes, yet 20 minutes in there was not a working FizzBuzz on the door.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    Problem is, as the hiring manager you're not going to see the resumes that didn't meet the keyword minimum. You're only seeing the resumes that made it through the filters.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      Engineering managers should dictate the filter to HR, not the other way around. If it's the other way around, that's a big red flag.

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)
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > 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. Me too, and I respond similarly to information like that. But the #1 hiring bias is hiring people like yourself. It's possibly I am just falling victim to that bias.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > It's a valid question. Keyword / minimums tilt the balance in HR's direction. Whiteboard / algorithm questions tilt towards hiring team. Keywords are almost always pointless. I've seen extraordinary resumes that ticked all the boxes, yet 20 minutes in there was not a working FizzBuzz on the door.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  Problem is, as the hiring manager you're not going to see the resumes that didn't meet the keyword minimum. You're only seeing the resumes that made it through the filters.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    Engineering managers should dictate the filter to HR, not the other way around. If it's the other way around, that's a big red flag.