5 ms·

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

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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- iampims 5y ago
  How are they conflicting?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    The interviewer's goal is to evaluate the interviewee accurately. The interviewee's goal is to be evaluated inaccurately. If you really need an example, then look at it this way: 1. The interviewee's goal is to be hired. 2. Assuming there is no conflict of goals, then the interviewer's goal is to hire the interviewee. 3. This immediately implies that the interview is a pure waste of time. You can just make the hire without having the interview. If you don't believe that interviews are -- in every case -- nothing but a waste of time, then you must reject one of the two premises. You either believe that (1) The interviewee does not wish to be hired, or (2) there is a conflict between the interviewee's goals and the interviewer's goals. We can make a similar observation purely by knowing that interviewers sometimes reject interviewees.
    - jaredsohn 5y ago
      >The interviewee's goal is to be evaluated inaccurately. Only if the interviewee doesn't think they should be hired. I think a better way to think of this is: 1. The interviewer's goal is to hire somebody that will provide value at the company, using the hiring criteria as a way of judging it. 2. The interviewee's goal is to get an offer at a company that makes sense for their career goals. These aren't necessarily adversarial.
      - asxd 5y ago
Drew_ 5y ago
Be honest: a candidate that works through a seemingly novel problem correctly is getting a much better review than another candidate that admitted they've done the question before and breezes through it. And this is assuming your interview round doesn't get thrown out entirely to begin with.
baskethead 5y ago
This is how dumb these interviews are. "We expect you to study and be prepared for algorithmic questions, BUT NOT TOO PREPARED! Only just enough. We will give you a random question of our choosing, but if you already studied this, then you will be deducted points, unless you tell us, so that we can ask you a question you've never studied before." A true interview would give the candidate their choice of question with the expectation that they know how to solve the question. It makes it a lot fairer for everyone involved.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  I was always kind of confused about how advice for interviewers always comes along with warnings of the type "Some people talk a good game about programming, but they can't actually do it. You have to watch out for these people. Never hire one. This is the biggest trap you can stumble into as an interviewer." After getting some interview coaching, I think I understand how this complaint arose. The whole problem is an artifact of the interview format, in which the design intent is for the candidate to be unable to solve the problem on their own. So you get scored based on how well you can charm the answer out of your interviewer while making them feel like everything they said was your idea. Instead of a test of how well you can program or solve math problems, it's a test of how good you are at cold reading. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading ) And unsurprisingly, a test of cold reading will end up delivering people who are good at cold reading without reference to whether they're good at other things. If you want to avoid this problem, just start giving assessments that don't involve interaction with the interviewer.
asxd 5y ago
I understand the sentiment about honesty and finding a legitimate good fit. Neither interviewers or candidates are perfect. But there's something off about this, isn't there? If you ask a candidate a question, and they answer it well, they've done what is asked of them. Why should they put themselves in a position of vulnerability just because they're well prepared?
mavelikara 5y ago
> It's pretty obvious to interviewers if you've solved a problem before, and we appreciate the honesty. > .. > dishonesty is never a good fit. If you rejected every such “dishonest candidate”, the paid services offering candidates practice questions would have gone out of business long ago. Given the popularity of such services, have your considered the possibility that you overestimate your ability to spot candidates who have solved the problem previously?
shrimpx 5y ago
To some extent it paradoxically sounds like you guys want applicants to not have studied basic algorithm problems, since the problems you find if you try to study are the same problems you guys ask in interviews.

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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iampims 5y ago
How are they conflicting?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  The interviewer's goal is to evaluate the interviewee accurately. The interviewee's goal is to be evaluated inaccurately. If you really need an example, then look at it this way: 1. The interviewee's goal is to be hired. 2. Assuming there is no conflict of goals, then the interviewer's goal is to hire the interviewee. 3. This immediately implies that the interview is a pure waste of time. You can just make the hire without having the interview. If you don't believe that interviews are -- in every case -- nothing but a waste of time, then you must reject one of the two premises. You either believe that (1) The interviewee does not wish to be hired, or (2) there is a conflict between the interviewee's goals and the interviewer's goals. We can make a similar observation purely by knowing that interviewers sometimes reject interviewees.
  - jaredsohn 5y ago
    >The interviewee's goal is to be evaluated inaccurately. Only if the interviewee doesn't think they should be hired. I think a better way to think of this is: 1. The interviewer's goal is to hire somebody that will provide value at the company, using the hiring criteria as a way of judging it. 2. The interviewee's goal is to get an offer at a company that makes sense for their career goals. These aren't necessarily adversarial.
    - asxd 5y ago

Drew_ 5y ago

Be honest: a candidate that works through a seemingly novel problem correctly is getting a much better review than another candidate that admitted they've done the question before and breezes through it. And this is assuming your interview round doesn't get thrown out entirely to begin with.

baskethead 5y ago

This is how dumb these interviews are. "We expect you to study and be prepared for algorithmic questions, BUT NOT TOO PREPARED! Only just enough. We will give you a random question of our choosing, but if you already studied this, then you will be deducted points, unless you tell us, so that we can ask you a question you've never studied before." A true interview would give the candidate their choice of question with the expectation that they know how to solve the question. It makes it a lot fairer for everyone involved.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
I was always kind of confused about how advice for interviewers always comes along with warnings of the type "Some people talk a good game about programming, but they can't actually do it. You have to watch out for these people. Never hire one. This is the biggest trap you can stumble into as an interviewer." After getting some interview coaching, I think I understand how this complaint arose. The whole problem is an artifact of the interview format, in which the design intent is for the candidate to be unable to solve the problem on their own. So you get scored based on how well you can charm the answer out of your interviewer while making them feel like everything they said was your idea. Instead of a test of how well you can program or solve math problems, it's a test of how good you are at cold reading. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading ) And unsurprisingly, a test of cold reading will end up delivering people who are good at cold reading without reference to whether they're good at other things. If you want to avoid this problem, just start giving assessments that don't involve interaction with the interviewer.

asxd 5y ago

I understand the sentiment about honesty and finding a legitimate good fit. Neither interviewers or candidates are perfect. But there's something off about this, isn't there? If you ask a candidate a question, and they answer it well, they've done what is asked of them. Why should they put themselves in a position of vulnerability just because they're well prepared?

mavelikara 5y ago

> It's pretty obvious to interviewers if you've solved a problem before, and we appreciate the honesty. > .. > dishonesty is never a good fit. If you rejected every such “dishonest candidate”, the paid services offering candidates practice questions would have gone out of business long ago. Given the popularity of such services, have your considered the possibility that you overestimate your ability to spot candidates who have solved the problem previously?

shrimpx 5y ago

To some extent it paradoxically sounds like you guys want applicants to not have studied basic algorithm problems, since the problems you find if you try to study are the same problems you guys ask in interviews.