3 ms·

Have we really reached a point in industry where asking a candidate to go through the process of problem solving is frowned upon? Where "I don't need to solve

Have we really reached a point in industry where asking a candidate to go through the process of problem solving is frowned upon? Where "I don't need to solve that because I have Google!" is really the right answer? I mean the question seriously wasn't that difficult. What if there isn't an open source library to cover your every need? Are you screwed? Critical thinking and problem solving are important in any position. If you are unwilling to perform this simple task then I would probably not want you on my team either, no matter how many blog posts you had written. I am sorry but extracting html elements is not crazy algorithms, hardcore theoretical computer science, or nearly as "academic" as everyone is screaming.

redcap 15y ago
The author talks about being asked a question regarding web elements when he was leaving the Search team for the Developer Relations team. A commenter talks about being asked algorithm questions despite being interviewed for a sysadmin role. Another commenter talks about telling the interviewers that she is not a coder and then is asked a bunch of coding questions despite interviewing for a testing position and having written a book on testing and having years of domain experience. If you are just wanting algorithm people then surely they're going to be lacking in other areas (e.g. Google Wave, designed by algorithmers). The objections raised here seem to be along the lines of that the questions are not related to the jobs people are interviewing for. This has two impacts: - people are not being asked questions about their domain (it seems incredibly stupid not to ask questions about testing if the interviewer is a tester) - you will cut down on the diversity of your staff if you just want algorithmists (which means that you are more likely to produce more Google Waves).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    "Developer Advocate is a highly technical role [1]." Doesn't appear to be from the link you gave. From your link: "You will be an evangelist for our newest technologies in the outside world, as well as a vocal advocate for developers' needs within Google. You will be an engineer who thrives on the cutting edge of technology and loves seeing exciting, new applications and business that other developers are building. Your job is to drive momentum for exciting new technologies such as Chrome, Android, App Engine, Google Wave, Google Maps API, HTML5, and our core Google Apps and Ads APIs. " Guy Kawasaki was one of the first evangelists. He was a jeweler previously. Of course Guy has a great many talents, but I don't think anyone would call him "highly technical." Notice the middle sentence says "you will be an engineer", but the rest of it talks about being an "Advocate" and "your job is to drive momentum", etc. The requirements don't seem to be highly technical either. (most of the languages are scripting languages, for instance.) From the description: BA/BS in Computer Science or a similar technical degree preferred. Experience blogging and writing technical articles, ideally with an existing follower base. Strong command of web application or mobile application development landscapes. Experience working directly with large partners, or with press and bloggers preferred. Considerable success as a software developer, architect, technology evangelist, CTO, or consultant working with web or mobile technologies. Strong command of web application or mobile application development landscapes. Solid programming abilities in one or more of the following languages: Java, PHP, Python, Ruby, .NET, JavaScript.
- emmelaich 15y ago
  The common factor is programming. They're looking for web designers with programming experience, sysadmins with programming experience, managers with programming experience. It sounds like they're doing it right to me. It's not the be-all and end-all but it is a differentiator.
- nandemo 15y ago
  Well, to be a very good software tester you do need to code. I wouldn't have thought this to be controversial. Yeah, there are activities that don't involve programming, like plain manual testing, test planning and management, etc. But test automation and making code testable require programming skills.
econgeeker 15y ago
I've interviewed many engineers in my career (I've been writing software for over 20 years.) I've evolved my process for finding good engineers. The problem with most technical interviews is that they end up asking trick questions, where the answer is more important than the process (and thus the "process of problem solving" is not even relevant.) You'll notice, this guy actually solved the problem in question, immediately, but that wasn't acceptable because it wasn't a technical solution. Critical thinking is very important, I agree. Far more important than problem solving, and one of the real problems is, that people think that these kinds of interviews actually reveal ones ability to think critically. They are not the same. Problem solving is more of a process one can learn, critical thinking is more of a talent, or maybe a willingness, to step outside the problem and evaluate, for instance, whether it should even be solved. In my experience- but I could be wrong- I would say there is a very strong correlation between being able to solve mathematical brain teasers and having trouble with critical thinking. (Unfortunately, these people do not realize that they have trouble engaging in critical thinking.) I can't find a correlation between solving the type of problems on google billboards and being good at critical thinking. Its mostly about awareness of obscure (to the mainstream, anyway) math. Being able to solve problems is good for an engineer. All good engineers can do this. Critical thinking, however, makes the great engineers great, and it eliminates the need to solve large numbers of tough problems. Engineers can end up in the weeds because they chase tough problems to solve (they're fun!) rather than employing critical thinking to keep focused on the important business problems. The examples from this blog are not very illustrative of my point, but there it is.
- paganel 15y ago
  > Engineers can end up in the weeds because they chase tough problems to solve (they're fun!) rather than employing critical thinking to keep focused on the important business problems. Just a wild guess, but I don't think Google is interested in engineers that can "remain focused on the important business problems" anymore. Maybe it's just because of their size, or maybe just because they're more corporate now and procedures have gotten more important than the end-results, I cannot tell, either way, they're not a start-up anymore, where as an engineer you do have to look at the bottom line.
AlexC04 15y ago
The original poster seems to be complaining more about the validity of the testing, rather than the fact that testing is happening. For a role in developer relations, the real core competencies should be very high scores on "soft skills". Like being personable, communicate well with others, able to make people "feel good", "able to spread joy". The number of times he's going to have to recursively solve the quadratic formula while displaying the data points on a graph using pictures of Barbara Striesand downloaded in realtime, is going to be infrequent at best. So the complaint that they're testing for engineering aptitude, when interpersonal creativity is the required core competency seems (from what I've seen of google's hiring) a pretty valid one. Perhaps what they really need to do is look at engineering their scientific hiring process to add a weighting to for "people skills". This could be easily accomplished by evaluating candidates using the NEO-PI-R* candidates would then be awarded scores out of 5 on various personality areas such as Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tendermindedness. Community relations people should score very high in Altruism and Tenderness. I also believe that Google's hiring process undervalues the human element. When dealing with pure engineering issues that might be OK but there are some positions that could use people with more 'creative flair' than others. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Invento...

redcap 15y ago

The author talks about being asked a question regarding web elements when he was leaving the Search team for the Developer Relations team. A commenter talks about being asked algorithm questions despite being interviewed for a sysadmin role. Another commenter talks about telling the interviewers that she is not a coder and then is asked a bunch of coding questions despite interviewing for a testing position and having written a book on testing and having years of domain experience. If you are just wanting algorithm people then surely they're going to be lacking in other areas (e.g. Google Wave, designed by algorithmers). The objections raised here seem to be along the lines of that the questions are not related to the jobs people are interviewing for. This has two impacts: - people are not being asked questions about their domain (it seems incredibly stupid not to ask questions about testing if the interviewer is a tester) - you will cut down on the diversity of your staff if you just want algorithmists (which means that you are more likely to produce more Google Waves).

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- econgeeker 15y ago
  "Developer Advocate is a highly technical role [1]." Doesn't appear to be from the link you gave. From your link: "You will be an evangelist for our newest technologies in the outside world, as well as a vocal advocate for developers' needs within Google. You will be an engineer who thrives on the cutting edge of technology and loves seeing exciting, new applications and business that other developers are building. Your job is to drive momentum for exciting new technologies such as Chrome, Android, App Engine, Google Wave, Google Maps API, HTML5, and our core Google Apps and Ads APIs. " Guy Kawasaki was one of the first evangelists. He was a jeweler previously. Of course Guy has a great many talents, but I don't think anyone would call him "highly technical." Notice the middle sentence says "you will be an engineer", but the rest of it talks about being an "Advocate" and "your job is to drive momentum", etc. The requirements don't seem to be highly technical either. (most of the languages are scripting languages, for instance.) From the description: BA/BS in Computer Science or a similar technical degree preferred. Experience blogging and writing technical articles, ideally with an existing follower base. Strong command of web application or mobile application development landscapes. Experience working directly with large partners, or with press and bloggers preferred. Considerable success as a software developer, architect, technology evangelist, CTO, or consultant working with web or mobile technologies. Strong command of web application or mobile application development landscapes. Solid programming abilities in one or more of the following languages: Java, PHP, Python, Ruby, .NET, JavaScript.
emmelaich 15y ago
The common factor is programming. They're looking for web designers with programming experience, sysadmins with programming experience, managers with programming experience. It sounds like they're doing it right to me. It's not the be-all and end-all but it is a differentiator.
nandemo 15y ago
Well, to be a very good software tester you do need to code. I wouldn't have thought this to be controversial. Yeah, there are activities that don't involve programming, like plain manual testing, test planning and management, etc. But test automation and making code testable require programming skills.

econgeeker 15y ago

I've interviewed many engineers in my career (I've been writing software for over 20 years.) I've evolved my process for finding good engineers. The problem with most technical interviews is that they end up asking trick questions, where the answer is more important than the process (and thus the "process of problem solving" is not even relevant.) You'll notice, this guy actually solved the problem in question, immediately, but that wasn't acceptable because it wasn't a technical solution. Critical thinking is very important, I agree. Far more important than problem solving, and one of the real problems is, that people think that these kinds of interviews actually reveal ones ability to think critically. They are not the same. Problem solving is more of a process one can learn, critical thinking is more of a talent, or maybe a willingness, to step outside the problem and evaluate, for instance, whether it should even be solved. In my experience- but I could be wrong- I would say there is a very strong correlation between being able to solve mathematical brain teasers and having trouble with critical thinking. (Unfortunately, these people do not realize that they have trouble engaging in critical thinking.) I can't find a correlation between solving the type of problems on google billboards and being good at critical thinking. Its mostly about awareness of obscure (to the mainstream, anyway) math. Being able to solve problems is good for an engineer. All good engineers can do this. Critical thinking, however, makes the great engineers great, and it eliminates the need to solve large numbers of tough problems. Engineers can end up in the weeds because they chase tough problems to solve (they're fun!) rather than employing critical thinking to keep focused on the important business problems. The examples from this blog are not very illustrative of my point, but there it is.

paganel 15y ago
> Engineers can end up in the weeds because they chase tough problems to solve (they're fun!) rather than employing critical thinking to keep focused on the important business problems. Just a wild guess, but I don't think Google is interested in engineers that can "remain focused on the important business problems" anymore. Maybe it's just because of their size, or maybe just because they're more corporate now and procedures have gotten more important than the end-results, I cannot tell, either way, they're not a start-up anymore, where as an engineer you do have to look at the bottom line.

AlexC04 15y ago

The original poster seems to be complaining more about the validity of the testing, rather than the fact that testing is happening. For a role in developer relations, the real core competencies should be very high scores on "soft skills". Like being personable, communicate well with others, able to make people "feel good", "able to spread joy". The number of times he's going to have to recursively solve the quadratic formula while displaying the data points on a graph using pictures of Barbara Striesand downloaded in realtime, is going to be infrequent at best. So the complaint that they're testing for engineering aptitude, when interpersonal creativity is the required core competency seems (from what I've seen of google's hiring) a pretty valid one. Perhaps what they really need to do is look at engineering their scientific hiring process to add a weighting to for "people skills". This could be easily accomplished by evaluating candidates using the NEO-PI-R* candidates would then be awarded scores out of 5 on various personality areas such as Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Tendermindedness. Community relations people should score very high in Altruism and Tenderness. I also believe that Google's hiring process undervalues the human element. When dealing with pure engineering issues that might be OK but there are some positions that could use people with more 'creative flair' than others. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Inventory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_NEO_Personality_Invento...