3 ms·

I agree with you, and as such, I suggest simply asking such an estimation problem set in the computing world. It also has the advantage that you can get into di

by jerf 5y ago

I agree with you, and as such, I suggest simply asking such an estimation problem set in the computing world. It also has the advantage that you can get into discussions of things relevant to computing, like finding out how much they understand about orders of magnitude time like socket communication times to various distances, speeds of disks, etc. One of the reasons I don't like "how many ping pong balls" etc. is that you're wasting valuable interview time. Interview time should be treated as very valuable to all concerned. Asking about ping pong balls just to find out estimation skills is a waste of time because it doesn't raise any other interesting questions, vs asking an estimation question that raises all kinds of other things you can pick up that are actually relevant in addition to testing estimation skills.

jfengel 5y ago
I think there's advantages and disadvantages to either approach. In this case, the thing I like about it is having them talk through their reasoning, regardless of the domain. If it's a domain they're familiar with I get the benefit of their knowledge, but it also takes longer because the specificity raises a lot more questions. If it's an unfamiliar domain, I get a glimpse of their creativity with a problem they haven't previously considered. If anything, it sounds like "ping pong ball" problems have become cliche. That makes them less useful: it doesn't represent my creativity, and it potentially leads to them reciting rote answers from "cracking the interview" books. Fortunately, I can come up with a thousand problems off the top of my head. How many letter "e" in the New York Times every day? How many sodium atoms in the ocean? How many people at the Nobel Prize Ceremony? The more off the wall the question, the more I'm testing how they handle the unfamiliar -- as well as conveying who I am. Which is part of the point. They should be interviewing me as much as I'm interviewing them.
- zepolen 5y ago
  I find it pointless to convince someone who doesn't see the value of thinking about solutions to problems they've never seen before. They will never be pioneers and that's okay, an organization needs both.
  - jerf 5y ago
    If you're implying I don't see value in solving problems I've never seen before, part of my objection is precisely that these "problems" aren't it. They're all the same. You pull 3-5 numbers out of your moderately informed ass and multiply them together. This is not "a problem I've never seen before", it's a problem I've heard a hundred times before. There's no creativity here, it's a dreadfully dull and well-established process.
    - zepolen 5y ago
      They are completely 'it', you just don't understand how, and don't even bother to ask why.
- jerf 5y ago
  These are so cliche that they mean nothing. They're all the same question. Superficially different, but fundamentally three same. There nothing to sink your teeth into, because they're all made up. Asking something with some grounding in reality gives us something to actually chew on. But hey, ask your silly question about sodium atoms. As for "interviewing you" as well, if you're ever interviewing me and pull one of those out, you better be looking pretty good in the rest of the interview because you just lost a lot of points.

by jerf 5y ago

jfengel 5y ago

I think there's advantages and disadvantages to either approach. In this case, the thing I like about it is having them talk through their reasoning, regardless of the domain. If it's a domain they're familiar with I get the benefit of their knowledge, but it also takes longer because the specificity raises a lot more questions. If it's an unfamiliar domain, I get a glimpse of their creativity with a problem they haven't previously considered. If anything, it sounds like "ping pong ball" problems have become cliche. That makes them less useful: it doesn't represent my creativity, and it potentially leads to them reciting rote answers from "cracking the interview" books. Fortunately, I can come up with a thousand problems off the top of my head. How many letter "e" in the New York Times every day? How many sodium atoms in the ocean? How many people at the Nobel Prize Ceremony? The more off the wall the question, the more I'm testing how they handle the unfamiliar -- as well as conveying who I am. Which is part of the point. They should be interviewing me as much as I'm interviewing them.

zepolen 5y ago
I find it pointless to convince someone who doesn't see the value of thinking about solutions to problems they've never seen before. They will never be pioneers and that's okay, an organization needs both.
- jerf 5y ago
  If you're implying I don't see value in solving problems I've never seen before, part of my objection is precisely that these "problems" aren't it. They're all the same. You pull 3-5 numbers out of your moderately informed ass and multiply them together. This is not "a problem I've never seen before", it's a problem I've heard a hundred times before. There's no creativity here, it's a dreadfully dull and well-established process.
  - zepolen 5y ago
    They are completely 'it', you just don't understand how, and don't even bother to ask why.
jerf 5y ago
These are so cliche that they mean nothing. They're all the same question. Superficially different, but fundamentally three same. There nothing to sink your teeth into, because they're all made up. Asking something with some grounding in reality gives us something to actually chew on. But hey, ask your silly question about sodium atoms. As for "interviewing you" as well, if you're ever interviewing me and pull one of those out, you better be looking pretty good in the rest of the interview because you just lost a lot of points.