4 ms·

it is not optimal, but there is no alternative. The interviews should show 1) you want the job, i.e. you put some effort; 2) you can learn, i.e. those ridiculou

it is not optimal, but there is no alternative. The interviews should show 1) you want the job, i.e. you put some effort; 2) you can learn, i.e. those ridiculous questions; 3) team fit, i.e. you like them, and they like you. Programmer interviews are the only thing people can do in a reasonable timeframe. As programmers we always learn, we learn what we need to learn to do the job, there is no reason to reject someone because he does not know the answer to a technical question, but if you are not making the effort to know the answer in order to get the job, maybe you don't want the job.

sneak 5y ago
There are alternatives. They don't prescreen for candidates that will put up with a large amount of big corporate bullshit without fucking off unexpectedly, however.
janoc 5y ago
Sorry that's utter BS. I have just passed an interview for my new job and it was none of the above. Yet very technical, still very involved - but with competent people on the other side that were showing they are as interested in getting someone hired as I was in getting the job. There were 2 interview calls in all (normally the second one would have been on-site but Covid ...). No need for BS scripted questions, no need to ask trivia, there was coding test but on a computer (not paper) and nothing crazy you would need to read books or study for. Is it perfect? Of course not. But that's why there is a 3 months trial period in the contract during which they can terminate the employee "overnight" if not performing satisfactorily. That's a much better solution than trying to evaluate everything and the kitchen sink in an interview by asking trivia questions and wasting the candidate's time with reams of books to study. Which, in the end, evaluate only whether the candidate is able to cram for interviews and not whether or not they are actually competent at doing their job.
- powerapple 5y ago
  Software engineers can learn everything and can take on whatever tasks. Small teams may look for specific skillsets they need, big companies can afford to hire people then find something they can work on later. Also, they are more candidates so they are basically doing a filtering rather than looking for the right candidates. Yes, there are 3 months trial period, but Google will have thousands of candidates every week, they need to quickly filter them rather than evaluating them equally. Many people interviewing don't even know the job they are interviewing for, that's the problem of big organization.
vsareto 5y ago
>2) you can learn, i.e. those ridiculous questions; So why do I have to re-prove this at every new job? It's not obvious enough I can learn if I've learned a programming language or framework in the past? Do companies have some brilliant insight into neuroscience where they know people become incapable of learning at some point? Any 2/4-year degree should also answer that question as well. Lots of things can answer that question. Ridiculous questions are about the laziest way to test someone for it.

sneak 5y ago

There are alternatives. They don't prescreen for candidates that will put up with a large amount of big corporate bullshit without fucking off unexpectedly, however.

janoc 5y ago

Sorry that's utter BS. I have just passed an interview for my new job and it was none of the above. Yet very technical, still very involved - but with competent people on the other side that were showing they are as interested in getting someone hired as I was in getting the job. There were 2 interview calls in all (normally the second one would have been on-site but Covid ...). No need for BS scripted questions, no need to ask trivia, there was coding test but on a computer (not paper) and nothing crazy you would need to read books or study for. Is it perfect? Of course not. But that's why there is a 3 months trial period in the contract during which they can terminate the employee "overnight" if not performing satisfactorily. That's a much better solution than trying to evaluate everything and the kitchen sink in an interview by asking trivia questions and wasting the candidate's time with reams of books to study. Which, in the end, evaluate only whether the candidate is able to cram for interviews and not whether or not they are actually competent at doing their job.

powerapple 5y ago
Software engineers can learn everything and can take on whatever tasks. Small teams may look for specific skillsets they need, big companies can afford to hire people then find something they can work on later. Also, they are more candidates so they are basically doing a filtering rather than looking for the right candidates. Yes, there are 3 months trial period, but Google will have thousands of candidates every week, they need to quickly filter them rather than evaluating them equally. Many people interviewing don't even know the job they are interviewing for, that's the problem of big organization.

vsareto 5y ago

>2) you can learn, i.e. those ridiculous questions; So why do I have to re-prove this at every new job? It's not obvious enough I can learn if I've learned a programming language or framework in the past? Do companies have some brilliant insight into neuroscience where they know people become incapable of learning at some point? Any 2/4-year degree should also answer that question as well. Lots of things can answer that question. Ridiculous questions are about the laziest way to test someone for it.