8 ms·

I’ve gotten interview questions I’d recently solved and my problem was it was too easy. I had trouble acting like it was the right amount of struggle. Is there

I’ve gotten interview questions I’d recently solved and my problem was it was too easy. I had trouble acting like it was the right amount of struggle. Is there a trick for that?

kortilla 5y ago
Empty your bowel into your underwear. It’s all a show anyway, at least make it a good one.
arduinomancer 5y ago
Yes, you need to pull a George Costanza and look/sound really annoyed while you code the solution
netizen-936824 5y ago
Why would you want to seem like you're struggling?
- kadoban 5y ago
  The interviewers are ideally trying to get a sense of how you think through problems, not just that you can spit out an answer you know. At least that's what they say.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    So does struggle equate to working through a problem? I don't think it does.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Not really, no.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - taude 5y ago
      It's not the struggle, it's the questions you ask, and what you share about your thought process trying to got to a solution. You might work yourself into a hole solving what you think is a simple array manipulation problem, but then realize some edge cases require you to switch to a heap/priority queue, etc.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lamad123 5y ago
    What if you happen to be an unlucky genius like J. von Neumann or something?
    - kadoban 5y ago
      You still should need to ask clarifying questions, because the specification of many problems is intentionally incomplete. Beyond that though, you can just be honest and say you know a problem and they can either pick another or just talk about it anyway.
kadoban 5y ago
Just go through the steps out loud, start with a really naive solution, say what's wrong with it, go on to the next. You can usually go through at least 3 levels of that. Also spend some time verifying the specification of the problem, ask about any potential edge cases. If you really know the problem well, go into maybe some extensions of it or harder versions.
titanomachy 5y ago
Just tell them it’s familiar. Depends on the company, but they can often tell. If you blast through a tough question and then struggle on easier ones, it’ll show up in hiring committee (or equivalent). It could easily cost you the offer if they think you’re being dishonest. If you say it’s familiar and they ask you to do it anyway, just solve it very quickly and thoroughly. They’ll give you points for your performance and probably ask you another.
shahbaby 5y ago
Practice with a friend.
benlivengood 5y ago
I've interviewed folks for FAANG roles. If you know how to solve the problem already, just tell the interviewer up front. Either they have another question or they will go deeper into a discussion about why and how you solved it the way you did, testing it, other approaches and why they are or are not good tradeoffs, etc. It's pretty obvious to interviewers if you've solved a problem before, and we appreciate the honesty. Interviews are not adversarial; they're to see if a candidate is a good fit for the role and dishonesty is never a good fit.
- stathibus 5y ago
  A good way to avoid this conundrum is to ask questions that are worth solving in real life. If the candidate breezes through the discussion because they've actually had to solve the problem before, then their victory is well earned. If on the other hand its an academic question in the same vein as the data structures or algorithms puzzles you find on $interviewprepforum, then the fact that they've solved it before tells you very little.
  - creato 5y ago
    I don't think there's much difference either way. In both cases, a candidate gained a large advantage in a way that tells you very little about their ability. I think this is why contrived questions gained popularity in the first place - they eliminated noise due to candidates randomly having solved similar problems before (that and "real life" problems usually can't be explained and solved in 1 hour).
  - asxd 5y ago
    I think this is on the right track. The best interviews I've been a part of involve the interviewer asking a question they don't fully know the answer to. Then the interview turns into a conversation where both parties are trying to work together to formulate an answer. The candidate should be scored based on how constructive that conversation is.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Interviews are not adversarial I'm struggling to imagine a definition of "adversarial" that would make this true. You have two parties with conflicting goals.

I’ve gotten interview questions I’d recently solved and my problem was it was too easy. I had trouble acting like it was the right amount of struggle. Is there a trick for that?

kortilla 5y ago

Empty your bowel into your underwear. It’s all a show anyway, at least make it a good one.

arduinomancer 5y ago

Yes, you need to pull a George Costanza and look/sound really annoyed while you code the solution

netizen-936824 5y ago

Why would you want to seem like you're struggling?

kadoban 5y ago
The interviewers are ideally trying to get a sense of how you think through problems, not just that you can spit out an answer you know. At least that's what they say.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  So does struggle equate to working through a problem? I don't think it does.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Not really, no.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - taude 5y ago
    It's not the struggle, it's the questions you ask, and what you share about your thought process trying to got to a solution. You might work yourself into a hole solving what you think is a simple array manipulation problem, but then realize some edge cases require you to switch to a heap/priority queue, etc.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Lamad123 5y ago
  What if you happen to be an unlucky genius like J. von Neumann or something?
  - kadoban 5y ago
    You still should need to ask clarifying questions, because the specification of many problems is intentionally incomplete. Beyond that though, you can just be honest and say you know a problem and they can either pick another or just talk about it anyway.

kadoban 5y ago

Just go through the steps out loud, start with a really naive solution, say what's wrong with it, go on to the next. You can usually go through at least 3 levels of that. Also spend some time verifying the specification of the problem, ask about any potential edge cases. If you really know the problem well, go into maybe some extensions of it or harder versions.

titanomachy 5y ago

Just tell them it’s familiar. Depends on the company, but they can often tell. If you blast through a tough question and then struggle on easier ones, it’ll show up in hiring committee (or equivalent). It could easily cost you the offer if they think you’re being dishonest. If you say it’s familiar and they ask you to do it anyway, just solve it very quickly and thoroughly. They’ll give you points for your performance and probably ask you another.

shahbaby 5y ago

Practice with a friend.

benlivengood 5y ago

I've interviewed folks for FAANG roles. If you know how to solve the problem already, just tell the interviewer up front. Either they have another question or they will go deeper into a discussion about why and how you solved it the way you did, testing it, other approaches and why they are or are not good tradeoffs, etc. It's pretty obvious to interviewers if you've solved a problem before, and we appreciate the honesty. Interviews are not adversarial; they're to see if a candidate is a good fit for the role and dishonesty is never a good fit.

stathibus 5y ago
A good way to avoid this conundrum is to ask questions that are worth solving in real life. If the candidate breezes through the discussion because they've actually had to solve the problem before, then their victory is well earned. If on the other hand its an academic question in the same vein as the data structures or algorithms puzzles you find on $interviewprepforum, then the fact that they've solved it before tells you very little.
- creato 5y ago
  I don't think there's much difference either way. In both cases, a candidate gained a large advantage in a way that tells you very little about their ability. I think this is why contrived questions gained popularity in the first place - they eliminated noise due to candidates randomly having solved similar problems before (that and "real life" problems usually can't be explained and solved in 1 hour).
- asxd 5y ago
  I think this is on the right track. The best interviews I've been a part of involve the interviewer asking a question they don't fully know the answer to. Then the interview turns into a conversation where both parties are trying to work together to formulate an answer. The candidate should be scored based on how constructive that conversation is.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Interviews are not adversarial I'm struggling to imagine a definition of "adversarial" that would make this true. You have two parties with conflicting goals.