4 ms·
Not necessarily. It just means that they weren't good at recruiting, they could still have a great team to work with.
by halfdan 5y ago
Not necessarily. It just means that they weren't good at recruiting, they could still have a great team to work with.
- xchaotic 5y agoHow do you recruit a great team if they’re bad at recruiting?
- MattGaiser 5y agoIf they put together most of the team another way, then it would be fine. My prior company would have interns do leetcode and system design. Intermediates and up had some paired code writing and a far less formal system design discussion. Most of the team might have been hired through a network and you only get leetcoded as an external unknown.
- ssully 5y agoWhere I work our team gets to review applications (pre-filtered) for candidates we are interested in. Those candidates are then given a general technical exercise. We get to review the results and ask follow up questions, but we basically get zero input into what kinds of questions are asked. I could 100% see a scenario where the people who manage the recruitment process replace that general exercise with some third-party online solution like hacker rank or whatever.
- samstave 5y agoThis. I interviewed with a company that I really wanted to work with, was overqualified for the job, and would have thrived in it... The HR person was a complete dolt though, and didnt even understand how to interview me properly... Sucks - I still respect the company, but their recruiting method was piss-poor..
- wongarsu 5y agoIt does tell you that the people working there practiced leetcode and puzzles in their free time (assuming they went through the same filter)
- MattGaiser 5y agoHilariously not in many cases. One of my old jobs introduced leetcode, particularly trees for interviewing. Nobody currently there could solve those. But a new engineer was assigned to handle interviewing and it was all about a couple of leetcode problems he found on the internet.