6 ms·

It sounds like the study points to the idea that "talk through your reasoning" is a bad interview approach. The last interview sequence I needed to do they put

It sounds like the study points to the idea that "talk through your reasoning" is a bad interview approach. The last interview sequence I needed to do they put me in front of an online IDE and said "go code." They also said I could use my OWN IDE if I had it set up. One even said "you can finish it later (post-interview) if you want." The candidates giving up: Some nontrivial percentage of CS students are just ... not capable developers. That's why we use programming tests to begin with. Programming tests may be the worst possible way to assess candidates, but they also seem to be the only way to assess candidates that doesn't involve paying them for a trial period, which really only works for companies large enough to be able to waste a lot of money. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

mprovost 5y ago
This is a great point about CS grads. Maybe in the past, you could just take a degree at face value: "oh you graduated from Stanford with an A average, you must know how to code, here's a job". But nobody trusts any university to produce capable developers, so you have to test everyone with crazy interviews. So then what's the point of going to a top CS school and why can they keep charging so much tuition?
- jedmeyers 5y ago
  > why can they keep charging so much tuition Because everyone keeps paying so much tuition. Why does _everyone_ can afford to pay so much is another question worth exploring.
- nowherebeen 5y ago
  Because like it or not, people pay for branding. It’s an ego thing or a correlation thing (in the past).
  - gmadsen 5y ago
    I doubt there exists a 4.0 gpa standford cs grad that is incapable of coding. It is more than just branding. Standford is harder and you learn more skills that a run of the mill state school. MIT moreso, no one is skating under the radar at MIT
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      I can't imagine someone getting a 4.0 at a crappy state school not being able to code without cheating.
    - mprovost 5y ago
      So would you be comfortable hiring a 4.0 grad from Stanford/MIT without doing a coding interview? Just based on their transcript. Does anyone do this anymore?
      - gmadsen 5y ago
        I would be comfortable skipping the standard algo/DS leetcode style coding interview questions. I'd probably want to see something more open ended, like a system arch/design if possible
    - danaris 5y ago
      Skating under the radar? Probably not. Paying someone else the equivalent of a (low) full-time salary to take your courses for you? Probably.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nowherebeen 5y ago
      > standford > Standford If you can't even spell it... I don't think you should assume anything about Stanford...
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  You still can. Some schools have great signal to noise ratio, and you can be pretty confident when hiring. It's not just reputation. Some school (Poly in Montreal is a good example - but other do it as well) requires all student to complete a paid internship in their field of study to graduate. So you know if you hire someone from there that they are able to code professionally.
ziggus 5y ago
Having candidates talk through the solution to a non-trivial programming problem is a critical tool for me. I need to find developers that can not only code, but work as a part of a team - something that requires significant communications abilities. I can't afford to hire developers that can't effectively communicate complex ideas to other developers - something they're often required to do on-the-fly.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Maybe the existing process can be tweaked? Just give candidates some time to themselves when they're not under observation before they present.
- saulpw 5y ago
  These are two different modes of operation. I can code when in abstract problem-solving mode, and then later communicate that complex idea using my verbal skills. I can't do both at the same time. It's like asking someone to give an extemporaneous talk on some subject, while translating each sentence into another language as they go. Even native bilingual speakers would have quite some trouble with this. They can generate content, they can speak fluently, and they can translate on the fly, but having to do all three "live" involves too much context switching. Maybe doable for simple or rehearsed topics, but most coding interview questions are non-trivial.
  - Closi 5y ago
    > These are two different modes of operation. I don't think this is universally true, and to some extent I think it's a practiced skill. I used to really struggle to problem-solve and communicate at the same time, but then did two years of improv comedy outside of work and suddenly don't have that issue anymore. I think part of it for me was shortening the gap between my thoughts and my communication (to zero) which stops the need to context switch, but introduces a need to think in a way which is clear and structured (because you are going to be verbalising the voice in your brain, rather than thinking and then translating those thoughts to words as a secondary step).
chris11 5y ago
> It sounds like the study points to the idea that "talk through your reasoning" is a bad interview approach. That idea definitely makes sense to me. And I think some devs do definitely underperform in interviews. Though I'm not sure if there's great alternatives. As an interviewer I feel that seeing someone work through a problem and debug issues gives useful information. I don't know if there's a better, less anxiety-producing way of testing those things. I do think take homes can be really useful, but those have their own problems. Maybe leaving someone alone onsite to complete the problem would be an option. But I think leaving the discussion to the end would give less info about the candidate's communication skills.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Just give them an initial five minutes or so to digest the problem themselves before asking them to communicate. Or even a few couple-minute long breaks throughout the interview where they're not under the microscope. Or some other way to lower artificial pressures. This unwillingness to experiment with the existing interview format, the intransigence to consider any alternatives, is simply maddening.
  - djokkataja 5y ago
    It strikes me as odd that interviews aren't collaborative. I mean, the really valuable information that interviewers want is whether or not the candidate is going to work well with other people there, right? So interviewers could work with candidates to solve some problem (maybe problems structured so that it's naturally convenient to divide them into two parts where each contributes). An external service could provide problems and software for shared solving to prevent interviewers from knowing the problems in advance (which would revert to them "testing"). And the shared problem-solving could be recorded so that interviewers could review it afterwards to decide more clearly how it went (maybe they felt like the other person did a lot during the shared problem-solving, but when watching it afterwards, they realize that the interviewer carried the weight of solving things). I think this kind of context change would be tremendously empowering for candidates such as myself who get very anxious about situations in which they feel people are "testing" them but who actually love working with people. It would also be nice as a way to see what people are like to work with, from both the perspectives of the candidates and the interviewers. PvE interviews instead of PvP interviews.
arebop 5y ago
Probationary hiring also doesn't work that well for many candidates. Despite at-will employment, there's an understanding about W2 white collar employment that gives new hires the confidence to buy and sell houses, move across the country or around the world, terminate talks with other prospective employers and pause interviewing, etc. This is a cultural thing that could change over time, but it would be a significant change.
- SomeCallMeTim 5y ago
  I actually did end up hiring a W2 employee who didn't work out. He moved cross country for the job too. Let him go after only a couple of months--but that was several months of pay that produced literally no positive results. And I was running a small development house at that point; dumping two months of salary down the drain was not a good thing for the bottom line. So yeah, totally agree. Paying everyone who "seems good on paper but who just can't pass the programming test" really doesn't work, despite wishful thinking to the contrary.

mprovost 5y ago

This is a great point about CS grads. Maybe in the past, you could just take a degree at face value: "oh you graduated from Stanford with an A average, you must know how to code, here's a job". But nobody trusts any university to produce capable developers, so you have to test everyone with crazy interviews. So then what's the point of going to a top CS school and why can they keep charging so much tuition?

jedmeyers 5y ago
> why can they keep charging so much tuition Because everyone keeps paying so much tuition. Why does _everyone_ can afford to pay so much is another question worth exploring.
nowherebeen 5y ago
Because like it or not, people pay for branding. It’s an ego thing or a correlation thing (in the past).
- gmadsen 5y ago
  I doubt there exists a 4.0 gpa standford cs grad that is incapable of coding. It is more than just branding. Standford is harder and you learn more skills that a run of the mill state school. MIT moreso, no one is skating under the radar at MIT
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    I can't imagine someone getting a 4.0 at a crappy state school not being able to code without cheating.
  - mprovost 5y ago
    So would you be comfortable hiring a 4.0 grad from Stanford/MIT without doing a coding interview? Just based on their transcript. Does anyone do this anymore?
    - gmadsen 5y ago
      I would be comfortable skipping the standard algo/DS leetcode style coding interview questions. I'd probably want to see something more open ended, like a system arch/design if possible
  - danaris 5y ago
    Skating under the radar? Probably not. Paying someone else the equivalent of a (low) full-time salary to take your courses for you? Probably.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nowherebeen 5y ago
    > standford > Standford If you can't even spell it... I don't think you should assume anything about Stanford...
908B64B197 5y ago
You still can. Some schools have great signal to noise ratio, and you can be pretty confident when hiring. It's not just reputation. Some school (Poly in Montreal is a good example - but other do it as well) requires all student to complete a paid internship in their field of study to graduate. So you know if you hire someone from there that they are able to code professionally.

ziggus 5y ago

Having candidates talk through the solution to a non-trivial programming problem is a critical tool for me. I need to find developers that can not only code, but work as a part of a team - something that requires significant communications abilities. I can't afford to hire developers that can't effectively communicate complex ideas to other developers - something they're often required to do on-the-fly.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Maybe the existing process can be tweaked? Just give candidates some time to themselves when they're not under observation before they present.
saulpw 5y ago
These are two different modes of operation. I can code when in abstract problem-solving mode, and then later communicate that complex idea using my verbal skills. I can't do both at the same time. It's like asking someone to give an extemporaneous talk on some subject, while translating each sentence into another language as they go. Even native bilingual speakers would have quite some trouble with this. They can generate content, they can speak fluently, and they can translate on the fly, but having to do all three "live" involves too much context switching. Maybe doable for simple or rehearsed topics, but most coding interview questions are non-trivial.
- Closi 5y ago
  > These are two different modes of operation. I don't think this is universally true, and to some extent I think it's a practiced skill. I used to really struggle to problem-solve and communicate at the same time, but then did two years of improv comedy outside of work and suddenly don't have that issue anymore. I think part of it for me was shortening the gap between my thoughts and my communication (to zero) which stops the need to context switch, but introduces a need to think in a way which is clear and structured (because you are going to be verbalising the voice in your brain, rather than thinking and then translating those thoughts to words as a secondary step).

chris11 5y ago

> It sounds like the study points to the idea that "talk through your reasoning" is a bad interview approach. That idea definitely makes sense to me. And I think some devs do definitely underperform in interviews. Though I'm not sure if there's great alternatives. As an interviewer I feel that seeing someone work through a problem and debug issues gives useful information. I don't know if there's a better, less anxiety-producing way of testing those things. I do think take homes can be really useful, but those have their own problems. Maybe leaving someone alone onsite to complete the problem would be an option. But I think leaving the discussion to the end would give less info about the candidate's communication skills.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Just give them an initial five minutes or so to digest the problem themselves before asking them to communicate. Or even a few couple-minute long breaks throughout the interview where they're not under the microscope. Or some other way to lower artificial pressures. This unwillingness to experiment with the existing interview format, the intransigence to consider any alternatives, is simply maddening.
- djokkataja 5y ago
  It strikes me as odd that interviews aren't collaborative. I mean, the really valuable information that interviewers want is whether or not the candidate is going to work well with other people there, right? So interviewers could work with candidates to solve some problem (maybe problems structured so that it's naturally convenient to divide them into two parts where each contributes). An external service could provide problems and software for shared solving to prevent interviewers from knowing the problems in advance (which would revert to them "testing"). And the shared problem-solving could be recorded so that interviewers could review it afterwards to decide more clearly how it went (maybe they felt like the other person did a lot during the shared problem-solving, but when watching it afterwards, they realize that the interviewer carried the weight of solving things). I think this kind of context change would be tremendously empowering for candidates such as myself who get very anxious about situations in which they feel people are "testing" them but who actually love working with people. It would also be nice as a way to see what people are like to work with, from both the perspectives of the candidates and the interviewers. PvE interviews instead of PvP interviews.

arebop 5y ago

Probationary hiring also doesn't work that well for many candidates. Despite at-will employment, there's an understanding about W2 white collar employment that gives new hires the confidence to buy and sell houses, move across the country or around the world, terminate talks with other prospective employers and pause interviewing, etc. This is a cultural thing that could change over time, but it would be a significant change.

SomeCallMeTim 5y ago
I actually did end up hiring a W2 employee who didn't work out. He moved cross country for the job too. Let him go after only a couple of months--but that was several months of pay that produced literally no positive results. And I was running a small development house at that point; dumping two months of salary down the drain was not a good thing for the bottom line. So yeah, totally agree. Paying everyone who "seems good on paper but who just can't pass the programming test" really doesn't work, despite wishful thinking to the contrary.