3 ms·
Remember the selection bias in observing who fails fizzbuzz. Those are the people who are repeatedly interviewing because they can't fizzbuzz. Those who can w
by vikingerik 5y ago
Remember the selection bias in observing who fails fizzbuzz. Those are the people who are repeatedly interviewing because they can't fizzbuzz. Those who can will get a job and remove themselves from the interview pool. Fizzbuzz-failers are a much greater share of interview candidates than of all programmers.
- filoleg 5y agoAgreed, this is an important bias to remember. I was just impressed that those people actually existed at all in the numbers beyond just a rounding error, because I used to think it was just an exaggeration, kind of like saying "he can barely figure out 2+2". Reality ended up being much more grim. I wouldn't be as baffled by tons of people failing fizzbuzz, if it wasn't for most of them having actually pretty legit-looking resumes though. Like, you would have a great programmer who aces all the interviews, but their resume is just decent. While people failing to solve fizzbuzz might have pretty impressive-looking resumes at times. Which is why, unfortunately, leetcode feels like a necessary evil. Because we live in a world where even the most incompetent people might have enough years of experiences of skating-by to craft a top-tier looking resume. Way too easy to bs your way in if you rely mainly on resumes, and firing people later (as opposed to not hiring them in the first place) is just too expensive in every single aspect (from money to opportunity cost to team morale).