6 ms·

To play devil's advocate, having a standardized process for all candidates has some benefits. I've witnessed otherwise stellar candidates with amazing open sour

To play devil's advocate, having a standardized process for all candidates has some benefits. I've witnessed otherwise stellar candidates with amazing open source contributions absolutely bomb coding interviews. Real "write a function that does X" in whatever language you're comfortable with and whatever tools or resources you want. Simple stuff. So yeah maybe the Big O stuff is lame, but sometimes it's also a filter for entitlement on the behalf of the candidate. Hiring isn't hard, but it's not easy.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> To play devil's advocate, having a standardized process for all candidates has some benefits. I've witnessed otherwise stellar candidates with amazing open source contributions absolutely bomb coding interviews. Real "write a function that does X" in whatever language you're comfortable with and whatever tools or resources you want. Simple stuff. I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? > So yeah maybe the Big O stuff is lame, but sometimes it's also a filter for entitlement on the behalf of the candidate. Hiring isn't hard, but it's not easy. My point wasn't that hiring is easy or even that programming quizzes do not have a part in interviews. It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. To be fair I did open myself up to it having responded to an unsolicited message, but I always try to politely decline if I get a message from a real person. They responded with something interesting and hooked me to agree to a call. I made it clear I was not interviewing for any position, and again while on the actual call I declined the Big O question. It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. My point is treating people like people, not like bycatch in your drag net. Simple stuff.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  > I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? Most companies want malleable, fungible engineers. Most companies are not stable, something is usually in flux -- projects, teams, organizations, business models. Most managers would rather have someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes. But that is not how I personally hire, it's just reality. I'd rather have someone I can work with. In my experience, a lot of big open source contributors are not good colleagues. Are they going to focus on their job or spend their hours in the office working on their passion? Are they going to put their head down and get the work done or write essays debating in a mailing list? If we can't even have a conversation about algorithm complexity then there are better ways I can spend my time. > It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. I really don't think this is true contempt, at least not usually. Recruiters, for better or for worse, vary widely. They are rarely good representations of the rest of the business. They're usually just sharks. A good recruiter is worth their weight in gold. But mostly they're ignorant, greedy, and have no care for you or the company you're interviewing for. > It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. Look, I'll be honest. I've conducted nearly a thousand interviews. I've hired at FAANGs, unicorns, YC companies. I almost never look at a candidate's resume/CV. If I'm not doing a coding interview and I want you to go into detail about something you worked on, I might take a glance. But otherwise, I actually do not care. I don't have time to peruse your GitHub profile or past projects. I don't even have time. One in a hundred applicants even get interviews, and I'm often interviewing 2-3 times a week. If it's important to you, tell me about it! I'd rather talk to you than read about you! In my experience, the resume/CV/published work is not a strong signal for making a good hire. It sounds like it's already helped you get your foot in the door, I wouldn't recommend expecting it to do anything more. I'm sorry you had a shitty experience with this company, but I encourage you to be humble and give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless they're a tiny, boutique company with a lifestyle or OSS-focused culture, they are busy people. If they don't ask these questions, then more often than not, by the time we're in a room or on a call together it's a waste of both our time.
jjeaff 5y ago
So they are stellar candidates with amazing contributions. Yet they can't do your whiteboard questions. So, are you trying to hire someone who will make stellar contributions to your codebase or are you looking for candidates who are good at answering dumb questions?
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  I don't typically whiteboard. I'll write the prompt on the whiteboard, but otherwise it's a tool. The candidate has a computer, either their own or we provide one, with whatever tools they requested or want to use. Yes, plenty of candidates with otherwise amazing track records can't code comically simple functions (not dumb questions) together, with tons of help and hints and direction provided. They can't articulate their thought process, can't describe what they're doing, can't ask for help or get combative or aggressive or entitled. The question is entirely not the point. It's everything else that is signal. Could I work with this person? Could I give them a task and have confidence?
  - gopher_space 5y ago
    Think about what your interview process would look like if it was a normal day at work. You show up out of the blue with a task that isn't connected to anything the org does and with all the decisions made already. I cannot search the internet, but you do not explain why. You sit down across from me and stare.
    - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
      You're describing something else. In my interviews you can use the internet. I don't stare, I'm mostly taking notes and answering questions, either listening to the candidate explain things or explaining things. No decisions have been made. I describe a problem, we solve it together. Just like we might on the job.
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        I can't do something as simple as empty my bladder while someone is watching. I certainly can't code something complex with someone watching me. Luckily, I have never had a coding job where I had to be watched while working.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> To play devil's advocate, having a standardized process for all candidates has some benefits. I've witnessed otherwise stellar candidates with amazing open source contributions absolutely bomb coding interviews. Real "write a function that does X" in whatever language you're comfortable with and whatever tools or resources you want. Simple stuff. I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? > So yeah maybe the Big O stuff is lame, but sometimes it's also a filter for entitlement on the behalf of the candidate. Hiring isn't hard, but it's not easy. My point wasn't that hiring is easy or even that programming quizzes do not have a part in interviews. It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. To be fair I did open myself up to it having responded to an unsolicited message, but I always try to politely decline if I get a message from a real person. They responded with something interesting and hooked me to agree to a call. I made it clear I was not interviewing for any position, and again while on the actual call I declined the Big O question. It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. My point is treating people like people, not like bycatch in your drag net. Simple stuff.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
> I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? Most companies want malleable, fungible engineers. Most companies are not stable, something is usually in flux -- projects, teams, organizations, business models. Most managers would rather have someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes. But that is not how I personally hire, it's just reality. I'd rather have someone I can work with. In my experience, a lot of big open source contributors are not good colleagues. Are they going to focus on their job or spend their hours in the office working on their passion? Are they going to put their head down and get the work done or write essays debating in a mailing list? If we can't even have a conversation about algorithm complexity then there are better ways I can spend my time. > It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. I really don't think this is true contempt, at least not usually. Recruiters, for better or for worse, vary widely. They are rarely good representations of the rest of the business. They're usually just sharks. A good recruiter is worth their weight in gold. But mostly they're ignorant, greedy, and have no care for you or the company you're interviewing for. > It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. Look, I'll be honest. I've conducted nearly a thousand interviews. I've hired at FAANGs, unicorns, YC companies. I almost never look at a candidate's resume/CV. If I'm not doing a coding interview and I want you to go into detail about something you worked on, I might take a glance. But otherwise, I actually do not care. I don't have time to peruse your GitHub profile or past projects. I don't even have time. One in a hundred applicants even get interviews, and I'm often interviewing 2-3 times a week. If it's important to you, tell me about it! I'd rather talk to you than read about you! In my experience, the resume/CV/published work is not a strong signal for making a good hire. It sounds like it's already helped you get your foot in the door, I wouldn't recommend expecting it to do anything more. I'm sorry you had a shitty experience with this company, but I encourage you to be humble and give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless they're a tiny, boutique company with a lifestyle or OSS-focused culture, they are busy people. If they don't ask these questions, then more often than not, by the time we're in a room or on a call together it's a waste of both our time.

jjeaff 5y ago

So they are stellar candidates with amazing contributions. Yet they can't do your whiteboard questions. So, are you trying to hire someone who will make stellar contributions to your codebase or are you looking for candidates who are good at answering dumb questions?

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
I don't typically whiteboard. I'll write the prompt on the whiteboard, but otherwise it's a tool. The candidate has a computer, either their own or we provide one, with whatever tools they requested or want to use. Yes, plenty of candidates with otherwise amazing track records can't code comically simple functions (not dumb questions) together, with tons of help and hints and direction provided. They can't articulate their thought process, can't describe what they're doing, can't ask for help or get combative or aggressive or entitled. The question is entirely not the point. It's everything else that is signal. Could I work with this person? Could I give them a task and have confidence?
- gopher_space 5y ago
  Think about what your interview process would look like if it was a normal day at work. You show up out of the blue with a task that isn't connected to anything the org does and with all the decisions made already. I cannot search the internet, but you do not explain why. You sit down across from me and stare.
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
    You're describing something else. In my interviews you can use the internet. I don't stare, I'm mostly taking notes and answering questions, either listening to the candidate explain things or explaining things. No decisions have been made. I describe a problem, we solve it together. Just like we might on the job.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      I can't do something as simple as empty my bladder while someone is watching. I certainly can't code something complex with someone watching me. Luckily, I have never had a coding job where I had to be watched while working.