5 ms·

> Before I am presented with a dumbass interviewer who throws a ridiculous question my way about algorithmic stuff, I prepare them: "Since we are both seeing if

> Before I am presented with a dumbass interviewer who throws a ridiculous question my way about algorithmic stuff, I prepare them: "Since we are both seeing if the other party is competent, I want you to know that I want you to also solve my questions. They will be slightly more difficult than the questions you pose to me." This is a great way to end the entire job interview process and make sure you're never called back again. Seriously though, I hope everyone reading this recognizes how ridiculous it is. If you go into interviews thinking you can neg your interviewer, refuse parts of the interview, and they're going to love it so much that they'll offer you a job, you're mistaken.

mdoms 5y ago
Exactly. I can answer every question on my list, and you'd think any interviewer could because we've all used our interview sheets again and again and seen every caliber of answer. If you waste my time by telling me up front you're going to ask your own questions back at me, I will end the interview and thank you for your time. Not because I can't answer your questions, but because that's not what I set aside this 90 minute block of time for and you know that. I'm cringing just thinking what it would be like working with someone who had the gall to pull that kind of nonsense.
- hackmiester 5y ago
  I don’t think the GP would want to work with you. That was the point of their comment.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  Right, it's not the cringe question, it's that you don't respect mah authority in asking me back a cringe question! I think the insane people are running the asylum now.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  >If you waste my time by telling me up front you're going to ask your own questions back at me I don't see why a 20 YOE candidate with predictable capability has no right to also likewise determine how experienced, qualified or intelligent team members on the interviewing side are...
decebalus1 5y ago
> Seriously though, I hope everyone reading this recognizes how ridiculous it is. If you go into interviews thinking you can neg your interviewer, refuse parts of the interview, and they're going to love it so much that they'll offer you a job, you're mistaken. I once flat out refused to solve a question and still got an offer.. It really depends on a lot of variables to make a blanket statement either way. One of the variables is your level of experience. After a point, the fact that the interview goes both ways can skew heavily in favor of the candidate and if you're tactful and polite you can totally get away with driving the interview away from stupid problems. If you can't, then maybe you don't belong there and maybe that's ok. It's a win-win. A job is not a blessing, it's just a job. Unless you're starving, there's no point in pretending you're drone.
lhorie 5y ago
It goes even further than the "difficult to work with" vibes. If someone has 20+ years of experience and hundreds of interviews under their belts, they ought to know about candidate caliber variability and the meaning of standardization practices, aka why interview panels are setup the way they are. As an interviewer, I might even entertain the idea of going along w/ said "two-way interview" charade, if only to see how the candidate deals w/ hiring (since for the sort of roles I evaluate for, that does come up as a job task), but I suspect that I'd see a holier-than-thou attitude that I've seen from bad interviewers and that that would be a negative flag (and, no, the "I'm not fired, I quit" thing won't work with me, because - not to brag - I'm pretty confident in my interviewee skills even without cramming leetcode)
- 734129837261 5y ago
  > It goes even further than the "difficult to work with" vibes. If someone has 20+ years of experience and hundreds of interviews under their belts, they ought to know about candidate caliber variability and the meaning of standardization practices, aka why interview panels are setup the way they are. Most interview panels are setup badly. Most interviewers are biased. Many technical people doing interviews just want to make themselves look smart. A company shouldn't have one interview process, they should have several. Some do well with live coding, some do well with take-home assignments, others do well with pair-programming. All are valid ways to show skill. And each can also be something that makes the candidate incredibly uncertain and stressed. > As an interviewer, I might even entertain the idea of going along w/ said "two-way interview" charade It is always a two-way interview. It's not a charade. You sound extremely entitled and elitist just by saying that. The candidate has 5 other offers waiting for them that aren't being a pain in the rear like you. Don't "entertain the idea", you are applying to the candidate as much as the candidate is applying to the company you work for. Get over yourself.
  - lhorie 5y ago
    > Most interview panels are setup badly. Most interviewers are biased. Many technical people doing interviews just want to make themselves look smart. I'm surprised you're saying this in such a one-sided way, since you claim to interview candidates. I interview as a candidate too just like anyone else, so itemizing interview process problems is preaching to the choir. But IMHO it's disingenuous to ignore that candidates cheat, that college kids putting 10 hours on a take home assignment are very different than mother-of-three w/ 10 years experience, that bad interviewing on the part of my peers leads to me picking up someone else's slack later, and that generally speaking interview sessions are uncomfortable scenarios for everyone, no matter the format, much like code formatting styles never fully pleases everyone. If you've been involved in defining interviewing standards, surely you must be aware that having several interview processes is even harder than standardizing on a single process: there are issues of interviewer qualification, calibration, throughput, interest, attrition, and other fun logistics things to think about. Saying every company should bend over backwards and have master interviewers fully calibrated in six different interviewing methodologies, at scale, at all times, is really not any more reasonable than a company expecting every candidate to bang out bubble sort in 30 minutes or take 10 hour take home assignments or whatever. And letting people do whatever is how you get to the Apple horror stories you see elsewhere in this comment section. The thing about people having other options lined up goes both ways, really. Just as candidates have other options lined up, companies also have candidates lined up. In mine, HR literally needs to be mindful to not flood people w/ too many interviews each week. > It is always a two-way interview Oh I fully agree with the spirit here, but there is also a thing called tact. I don't go on pissing contests w/ my candidates as an interviewer and I don't go disrespecting an interviewer's time by saying "you know what, you don't know how to interview me, let me show you how I do it to you" (and yes, I believe this is tactless behavior from the perspective of myself being a candidate). If my awareness of industry standards is me being a hard-ass in your mind, I don't know what to tell you. Industry standards are what they are, ad-hoc and imperfect as they may be, and at least I try to understand the problem space and make the process better rather than just being passive aggressive about it like so many interviewing-related threads are. When I say "I might entertain the idea", unlike sibling comments here I do actually mean exactly that: if you think you can show your skills better that way than my planned interview structure, by all means, go ahead and show me, but when I say "charade", I also mean that: I'm still evaluating you just as you are evaluating me, and if you think I'm evaluating whether "you're as smart as me(tm)", you've got the wrong impression. If your strategy as a candidate is to talk my ears off, I'm certainly open to it as an interviewer. I have had sessions like this from both sides. I'm familiar enough with this interviewing trick and how "talkers-who-dont-walk" abuse it. To be clear, I'm not saying you're one of those, but that as an interviewer, one needs to be aware of bad faith actors, and it's one of the reasons many interviewers cringe at the thought of "curveballs" like the one you suggested.
734129837261 5y ago
Absolute nonsense. In a field where very experienced people are in high demand, they'll bend over backward to offer you the job. I have references and a long history of employment. I'm not "negging" them (also, grow up), and refusing part of an interview when THEY are the one in need of talent, well, that just means they change their recruitment workflow, or lose out on talent. I am not difficult to work with and I have a real good track record at applying for jobs, and getting job offers. Anecdotal, sure, but when an applicant gives me a good reason why they feel a certain part of the interview isn't helpful to either one of us, then I adapt. Especially if that person already got through the recruiter and tech-review filters, that means they are good.

mdoms 5y ago

Exactly. I can answer every question on my list, and you'd think any interviewer could because we've all used our interview sheets again and again and seen every caliber of answer. If you waste my time by telling me up front you're going to ask your own questions back at me, I will end the interview and thank you for your time. Not because I can't answer your questions, but because that's not what I set aside this 90 minute block of time for and you know that. I'm cringing just thinking what it would be like working with someone who had the gall to pull that kind of nonsense.

hackmiester 5y ago
I don’t think the GP would want to work with you. That was the point of their comment.
stefan_ 5y ago
Right, it's not the cringe question, it's that you don't respect mah authority in asking me back a cringe question! I think the insane people are running the asylum now.
maccolgan 5y ago
>If you waste my time by telling me up front you're going to ask your own questions back at me I don't see why a 20 YOE candidate with predictable capability has no right to also likewise determine how experienced, qualified or intelligent team members on the interviewing side are...

decebalus1 5y ago

> Seriously though, I hope everyone reading this recognizes how ridiculous it is. If you go into interviews thinking you can neg your interviewer, refuse parts of the interview, and they're going to love it so much that they'll offer you a job, you're mistaken. I once flat out refused to solve a question and still got an offer.. It really depends on a lot of variables to make a blanket statement either way. One of the variables is your level of experience. After a point, the fact that the interview goes both ways can skew heavily in favor of the candidate and if you're tactful and polite you can totally get away with driving the interview away from stupid problems. If you can't, then maybe you don't belong there and maybe that's ok. It's a win-win. A job is not a blessing, it's just a job. Unless you're starving, there's no point in pretending you're drone.

lhorie 5y ago

It goes even further than the "difficult to work with" vibes. If someone has 20+ years of experience and hundreds of interviews under their belts, they ought to know about candidate caliber variability and the meaning of standardization practices, aka why interview panels are setup the way they are. As an interviewer, I might even entertain the idea of going along w/ said "two-way interview" charade, if only to see how the candidate deals w/ hiring (since for the sort of roles I evaluate for, that does come up as a job task), but I suspect that I'd see a holier-than-thou attitude that I've seen from bad interviewers and that that would be a negative flag (and, no, the "I'm not fired, I quit" thing won't work with me, because - not to brag - I'm pretty confident in my interviewee skills even without cramming leetcode)

734129837261 5y ago
> It goes even further than the "difficult to work with" vibes. If someone has 20+ years of experience and hundreds of interviews under their belts, they ought to know about candidate caliber variability and the meaning of standardization practices, aka why interview panels are setup the way they are. Most interview panels are setup badly. Most interviewers are biased. Many technical people doing interviews just want to make themselves look smart. A company shouldn't have one interview process, they should have several. Some do well with live coding, some do well with take-home assignments, others do well with pair-programming. All are valid ways to show skill. And each can also be something that makes the candidate incredibly uncertain and stressed. > As an interviewer, I might even entertain the idea of going along w/ said "two-way interview" charade It is always a two-way interview. It's not a charade. You sound extremely entitled and elitist just by saying that. The candidate has 5 other offers waiting for them that aren't being a pain in the rear like you. Don't "entertain the idea", you are applying to the candidate as much as the candidate is applying to the company you work for. Get over yourself.
- lhorie 5y ago
  > Most interview panels are setup badly. Most interviewers are biased. Many technical people doing interviews just want to make themselves look smart. I'm surprised you're saying this in such a one-sided way, since you claim to interview candidates. I interview as a candidate too just like anyone else, so itemizing interview process problems is preaching to the choir. But IMHO it's disingenuous to ignore that candidates cheat, that college kids putting 10 hours on a take home assignment are very different than mother-of-three w/ 10 years experience, that bad interviewing on the part of my peers leads to me picking up someone else's slack later, and that generally speaking interview sessions are uncomfortable scenarios for everyone, no matter the format, much like code formatting styles never fully pleases everyone. If you've been involved in defining interviewing standards, surely you must be aware that having several interview processes is even harder than standardizing on a single process: there are issues of interviewer qualification, calibration, throughput, interest, attrition, and other fun logistics things to think about. Saying every company should bend over backwards and have master interviewers fully calibrated in six different interviewing methodologies, at scale, at all times, is really not any more reasonable than a company expecting every candidate to bang out bubble sort in 30 minutes or take 10 hour take home assignments or whatever. And letting people do whatever is how you get to the Apple horror stories you see elsewhere in this comment section. The thing about people having other options lined up goes both ways, really. Just as candidates have other options lined up, companies also have candidates lined up. In mine, HR literally needs to be mindful to not flood people w/ too many interviews each week. > It is always a two-way interview Oh I fully agree with the spirit here, but there is also a thing called tact. I don't go on pissing contests w/ my candidates as an interviewer and I don't go disrespecting an interviewer's time by saying "you know what, you don't know how to interview me, let me show you how I do it to you" (and yes, I believe this is tactless behavior from the perspective of myself being a candidate). If my awareness of industry standards is me being a hard-ass in your mind, I don't know what to tell you. Industry standards are what they are, ad-hoc and imperfect as they may be, and at least I try to understand the problem space and make the process better rather than just being passive aggressive about it like so many interviewing-related threads are. When I say "I might entertain the idea", unlike sibling comments here I do actually mean exactly that: if you think you can show your skills better that way than my planned interview structure, by all means, go ahead and show me, but when I say "charade", I also mean that: I'm still evaluating you just as you are evaluating me, and if you think I'm evaluating whether "you're as smart as me(tm)", you've got the wrong impression. If your strategy as a candidate is to talk my ears off, I'm certainly open to it as an interviewer. I have had sessions like this from both sides. I'm familiar enough with this interviewing trick and how "talkers-who-dont-walk" abuse it. To be clear, I'm not saying you're one of those, but that as an interviewer, one needs to be aware of bad faith actors, and it's one of the reasons many interviewers cringe at the thought of "curveballs" like the one you suggested.

734129837261 5y ago

Absolute nonsense. In a field where very experienced people are in high demand, they'll bend over backward to offer you the job. I have references and a long history of employment. I'm not "negging" them (also, grow up), and refusing part of an interview when THEY are the one in need of talent, well, that just means they change their recruitment workflow, or lose out on talent. I am not difficult to work with and I have a real good track record at applying for jobs, and getting job offers. Anecdotal, sure, but when an applicant gives me a good reason why they feel a certain part of the interview isn't helpful to either one of us, then I adapt. Especially if that person already got through the recruiter and tech-review filters, that means they are good.