7 ms·

I don't get it. University tests are brutal too and have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It seems like a job interview

I don't get it. University tests are brutal too and have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It seems like a job interview is fair game for the same, no? I feel like this is a very bruised ego here. I'm not saying any interview process is perfect, and I think a lot of them are very, very bad at accessing the capabilities and value someone provides, but same for University.

bingohbangoh 5y ago
Most interviews these days ape off Google interviews too. See most FAANG-style companies. Very few deviate from coding or systems design questions. Thus if you're studying for one, you're kind of studying for all. I never hear reasonable alternatives to this. Surely you'd rather a coding exercise than a take home coding practice you never feel will be complete enough for people. Or to do what Basecamp does and work for 2 months only to be given the boot.
lastofthemojito 5y ago
I would see university admissions as a closer comparison than university tests. If I'm applying to jobs (or universities) I'll want to apply to several in case some don't accept me, some feel like a bad fit once I'm in the process, etc. I won't want to cram for each. I'll want to reuse the same cover letter or admissions essay to the extent possible. Once I'm in the university and enrolled in classes, I'll know what to focus on and I'll be willing to study hard for tests. I know some people see it differently, but I've always considered multiple potential employers simultaneously and I definitely haven't been willing to play the "devote weeks of your life to try to get hired by a specific company" game. On the other hand, some people find that worthwhile, and more power to them.
troutwine 5y ago
At least in my experience the main difference between exams and interviews comes down to relevance. That is, an exam will be within the context of material you've been studying and an interview just... kinda whatever? I have only very, very rarely seen -- from both sides of the table -- professional interviews that are associated with the job the person might do. This problem is worse the larger the company, once there's a standardized set of questions to evaluate someone's possible fitness for a variety of roles. When I've had power over the interviewing process it's always been enlightening to ask the interviewer to take their own interview. I'd be willing to bet most professors can pass their own exams; the same hasn't been true of interviewers.
commandlinefan 5y ago
I always wonder the same thing... either an interview process is so brutal that they would end up not hiring anybody (so they'd eventually relax it), or it's just the "right" amount of brutal, and people who are complaining about it are experiencing a bit of sour grapes. And don't get me wrong, I've interviewed for jobs and felt lousy about getting rejected and tried to convince myself that it was "their loss" even though it was a job I really wanted at the time. On the other hand, I get the sense from people who've been through the Google treadmill that the problem isn't so much that it's hard like university courses are/can be but that it's arbitrary.
- usrusr 5y ago
  With brush tests you might easily end up hiring someone who excels at your tests and nothing else. Overfitting can be a problem even with subjects that don't actively try to adapt, and for Google they most certainly do (I read the "please take some months to prepare" suggestions as a clear indication that they want a level playing field wrt adaption, kind of cheap to leave that problem to be solved applicants) In the long run you might end up with better results if you don't even try to identify the one optional choice and only focus on weeding out false positives, leaving the rest to a diceroll. (I'd be surprised if what happens at Google wasn't a weird compromise Frankenstein of both)
tablespoon 5y ago
> I don't get it. University tests are brutal too and have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It seems like a job interview is fair game for the same, no? No. That logic is just superficial pattern matching. The point of university is to spend the time and energy to master the subject, test or no, and the knowledge gained is usually valuable in and of itself. The kind of interview prep in question is basically learning how to jump through some arrogant company's hoops, which likely has little to do with anything, including their actual job.
- rchaud 5y ago
  What is the SAT/ACT if not jumping through hoops? Why do I have to be in the top 10% of my HS class, AND in the 95th percentile of SAT scores? People are accustomed to jumping through hoops to pay an already rich institution several thousand more dollars. In contrast, you study for Google's exams, and if you pass, Google ends up paying you.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > What is the SAT/ACT if not jumping through hoops? I wouldn't call those "university tests." Also, you can do quite well by just mastering your High School subjects without extra test prep, and the stuff tested (e.g. Algebra) is stuff you'll actually build on in university. They're also standardized, so even if you decide to do test prep, it's not like you have to prep for different exams for each school you apply for.
- johnwheeler 5y ago
  > The point of university is to spend the time and energy to master the subject Really? I think most people go to college to get a good job before all else. With that line of thinking, an interview is just another of these “tests”. But you make a good point about these arrogant companies administering tests. College faculty are never arrogant, but always humble like this guy in the article who just can’t chalk his failure up to being a human being.
  - 5y ago
daniel-thompson 5y ago
> University tests [...] have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It's reasonable for universities to have that expectation because being a university student is considered to be a full-time occupation. It's unreasonable to have that expectation for working professionals. But Google and other big tech do it anyway because there are thousands of people waiting in line to interview.
the_af 5y ago
The brutal interviews become useless if they assess trivia you won't use in your job and you would google if you had the time, and also if they don't measure your ability to learn and adapt, or to take things seriously and responsibly. People rail against these because they are not only brutal, they are a waste of time. We also suspect they have little correlation to actual employee performance once hired. Steve Yegge, ex-googler, also mentioned the common phenomenon of the interview anti-loop that used to happen at Google: two interviewers in your queue would not have hired each other, so the attitude/knowledge which would satisfy one of them will actually get you rejected with the other.
hogFeast 5y ago
The stakes at university are miniscule. If your kid needs shoes, if your landlord is calling before the interview asking where their money is, if you have a medical condition (which universities account for, but most employers do not)...I am not having a pop at you, but what world do you live in? The purpose of university is to study, the purpose of a job interview is not to study. As I explain below, it is clear to me why Google make this error in confusing the too...it is baffling that anyone else views this as logical. Btw, be totally clear, this has been a bad outcome for Google. Google's failure has been well-hidden by the fact that they have a monopoly product that is a cash machine requiring low/zero marginal investment...once you start from that premise, you realise that management has destroyed monumental amounts of capital (your comparison with university is very apt, Google is functionally a bureaucracy operating like a 11th century monastery, you have to spend years studying pointless trivia to get in, a totally institutional mindset).
usrusr 5y ago
University test participation is far from worthless if you happen to come in second amongst dozens of participants. There are many winners.
kongin 5y ago
I pay universities to get a degree. Companies pay me to work. They are welcome to pay my consulting rates of $300 per hour for interview questions.
nicoffeine 5y ago
Everyone at a university is taking the same test with the same expectations, usually to some national or international standard for that field of study. Each FAANG has their own set of tests that are not standard or internally consistent, even for the same job. This is the cost of fighting professional standards for the industry as a whole. I'm not necessarily for that, but I don't know what the sensible alternative is to inter-corporate pissing matches and job titles that are practically meaningless. Nobody who knows how to build a house or fix a car is going to spend months playing puzzle games about those topics. They are just going to find an opportunity to do the work they enjoy somewhere else. Edit: to remove unrelated rant.
dolni 5y ago
The point of attending a University is that at the end of it, the University confers upon you a degree that asserts your knowledge in the relevant field of study. That degree is valid forever; the University doesn't later get to take it back if you're actually a buffoon. You receive the credential, it has value, and its conferral is guaranteed as long as you complete the requirements of the degree. By contrast, interviews are extremely condensed and an interview doesn't guarantee you a job in the same way that completing degree requirements guarantees a degree. Employers also have the option of firing you later.

bingohbangoh 5y ago

Most interviews these days ape off Google interviews too. See most FAANG-style companies. Very few deviate from coding or systems design questions. Thus if you're studying for one, you're kind of studying for all. I never hear reasonable alternatives to this. Surely you'd rather a coding exercise than a take home coding practice you never feel will be complete enough for people. Or to do what Basecamp does and work for 2 months only to be given the boot.

lastofthemojito 5y ago

I would see university admissions as a closer comparison than university tests. If I'm applying to jobs (or universities) I'll want to apply to several in case some don't accept me, some feel like a bad fit once I'm in the process, etc. I won't want to cram for each. I'll want to reuse the same cover letter or admissions essay to the extent possible. Once I'm in the university and enrolled in classes, I'll know what to focus on and I'll be willing to study hard for tests. I know some people see it differently, but I've always considered multiple potential employers simultaneously and I definitely haven't been willing to play the "devote weeks of your life to try to get hired by a specific company" game. On the other hand, some people find that worthwhile, and more power to them.

troutwine 5y ago

At least in my experience the main difference between exams and interviews comes down to relevance. That is, an exam will be within the context of material you've been studying and an interview just... kinda whatever? I have only very, very rarely seen -- from both sides of the table -- professional interviews that are associated with the job the person might do. This problem is worse the larger the company, once there's a standardized set of questions to evaluate someone's possible fitness for a variety of roles. When I've had power over the interviewing process it's always been enlightening to ask the interviewer to take their own interview. I'd be willing to bet most professors can pass their own exams; the same hasn't been true of interviewers.

commandlinefan 5y ago

I always wonder the same thing... either an interview process is so brutal that they would end up not hiring anybody (so they'd eventually relax it), or it's just the "right" amount of brutal, and people who are complaining about it are experiencing a bit of sour grapes. And don't get me wrong, I've interviewed for jobs and felt lousy about getting rejected and tried to convince myself that it was "their loss" even though it was a job I really wanted at the time. On the other hand, I get the sense from people who've been through the Google treadmill that the problem isn't so much that it's hard like university courses are/can be but that it's arbitrary.

usrusr 5y ago
With brush tests you might easily end up hiring someone who excels at your tests and nothing else. Overfitting can be a problem even with subjects that don't actively try to adapt, and for Google they most certainly do (I read the "please take some months to prepare" suggestions as a clear indication that they want a level playing field wrt adaption, kind of cheap to leave that problem to be solved applicants) In the long run you might end up with better results if you don't even try to identify the one optional choice and only focus on weeding out false positives, leaving the rest to a diceroll. (I'd be surprised if what happens at Google wasn't a weird compromise Frankenstein of both)

tablespoon 5y ago

> I don't get it. University tests are brutal too and have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It seems like a job interview is fair game for the same, no? No. That logic is just superficial pattern matching. The point of university is to spend the time and energy to master the subject, test or no, and the knowledge gained is usually valuable in and of itself. The kind of interview prep in question is basically learning how to jump through some arrogant company's hoops, which likely has little to do with anything, including their actual job.

rchaud 5y ago
What is the SAT/ACT if not jumping through hoops? Why do I have to be in the top 10% of my HS class, AND in the 95th percentile of SAT scores? People are accustomed to jumping through hoops to pay an already rich institution several thousand more dollars. In contrast, you study for Google's exams, and if you pass, Google ends up paying you.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > What is the SAT/ACT if not jumping through hoops? I wouldn't call those "university tests." Also, you can do quite well by just mastering your High School subjects without extra test prep, and the stuff tested (e.g. Algebra) is stuff you'll actually build on in university. They're also standardized, so even if you decide to do test prep, it's not like you have to prep for different exams for each school you apply for.
johnwheeler 5y ago
> The point of university is to spend the time and energy to master the subject Really? I think most people go to college to get a good job before all else. With that line of thinking, an interview is just another of these “tests”. But you make a good point about these arrogant companies administering tests. College faculty are never arrogant, but always humble like this guy in the article who just can’t chalk his failure up to being a human being.
- 5y ago

daniel-thompson 5y ago

> University tests [...] have the expectation the student will devote large amounts of time and energy. It's reasonable for universities to have that expectation because being a university student is considered to be a full-time occupation. It's unreasonable to have that expectation for working professionals. But Google and other big tech do it anyway because there are thousands of people waiting in line to interview.

the_af 5y ago

The brutal interviews become useless if they assess trivia you won't use in your job and you would google if you had the time, and also if they don't measure your ability to learn and adapt, or to take things seriously and responsibly. People rail against these because they are not only brutal, they are a waste of time. We also suspect they have little correlation to actual employee performance once hired. Steve Yegge, ex-googler, also mentioned the common phenomenon of the interview anti-loop that used to happen at Google: two interviewers in your queue would not have hired each other, so the attitude/knowledge which would satisfy one of them will actually get you rejected with the other.

hogFeast 5y ago

The stakes at university are miniscule. If your kid needs shoes, if your landlord is calling before the interview asking where their money is, if you have a medical condition (which universities account for, but most employers do not)...I am not having a pop at you, but what world do you live in? The purpose of university is to study, the purpose of a job interview is not to study. As I explain below, it is clear to me why Google make this error in confusing the too...it is baffling that anyone else views this as logical. Btw, be totally clear, this has been a bad outcome for Google. Google's failure has been well-hidden by the fact that they have a monopoly product that is a cash machine requiring low/zero marginal investment...once you start from that premise, you realise that management has destroyed monumental amounts of capital (your comparison with university is very apt, Google is functionally a bureaucracy operating like a 11th century monastery, you have to spend years studying pointless trivia to get in, a totally institutional mindset).

usrusr 5y ago

University test participation is far from worthless if you happen to come in second amongst dozens of participants. There are many winners.

kongin 5y ago

I pay universities to get a degree. Companies pay me to work. They are welcome to pay my consulting rates of $300 per hour for interview questions.

nicoffeine 5y ago

Everyone at a university is taking the same test with the same expectations, usually to some national or international standard for that field of study. Each FAANG has their own set of tests that are not standard or internally consistent, even for the same job. This is the cost of fighting professional standards for the industry as a whole. I'm not necessarily for that, but I don't know what the sensible alternative is to inter-corporate pissing matches and job titles that are practically meaningless. Nobody who knows how to build a house or fix a car is going to spend months playing puzzle games about those topics. They are just going to find an opportunity to do the work they enjoy somewhere else. Edit: to remove unrelated rant.

dolni 5y ago

The point of attending a University is that at the end of it, the University confers upon you a degree that asserts your knowledge in the relevant field of study. That degree is valid forever; the University doesn't later get to take it back if you're actually a buffoon. You receive the credential, it has value, and its conferral is guaranteed as long as you complete the requirements of the degree. By contrast, interviews are extremely condensed and an interview doesn't guarantee you a job in the same way that completing degree requirements guarantees a degree. Employers also have the option of firing you later.