5 ms·

> Being skilled in a specific FE framework or any library/API isn't what you should be testing for Knowing how to implement some arcane algorithm is also not w

> Being skilled in a specific FE framework or any library/API isn't what you should be testing for Knowing how to implement some arcane algorithm is also not what you should be testing for. It tells me ZERO about this persons ability to code in the real world. It may not even tell me they understand the algorithm...they may have just memorized the pseudocode implementation well enough. > You really want to uncover ability (IQ) not familiarity. a) Cognitive ability isn't accurately measureable. Not with IQ tests, and certainly not with standardized puzzle questions the internet is making lists of which one to learn to crack interview @ company X b) Familiarity is EXTREMELY important when working with complicated systems.

jiveturkey 5y ago
a) sure and that's why you aren't literally administering an IQ test. it's highly subjective and flawed. so? b) of course it is! no dispute whatsoever. that's why it's 6 months to become productive in any new job in the first place. But you want someone that can BECOME familiar and can UNDERSTAND the framework du jour. When I hire an appliance repairman I want a guy that understands how the machine WORKS and can troubleshoot it from that knowledge base. Not someone that can swap in a fuse as long as the machine tells him which fuse is bad. I want someone who is knowledgeable with DISHWASHERS not someone that is an expert in MIELE seeing as I have a BOSCH or I've modified my miele beyond recognition anymore. If you need seat warmers the story is different. Then sure, you just want a miele certified repairman.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  I think we are completely in agreement about what constitutes skill, and what companies should look for in candidates. The point where I think we disagree, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is: are LC style questions an effective testing method for these skills. I say no, they are not, for 2 reasons: a) implementing something like a non-trivial graph algorithm doesn't come up often in day-2-day work, and if it comes up, even some experienced developers look it up, just to make sure they got it right from memory. To borrow your dishwasher-analogy: I want the repairmen to know how a generalized dishwasher works, so he can repair Miele, Bosch, whathaveyou, but I don't need him to be able to program the DWs microcontroller on a whiteboard, or forge one of the pipes with nothing but a firepit, a hammer, anvil, crucible and some copper-scrap. b) since all these questions are known problems, both in their solution AND their usage as test questions, we are facing a "learning for the test" dilemma: people can, and many do, just memorize these answers to pass interviews, same as many students in standardized test environments just learn how to pass the tests. This is fundamentally different from understanding the subject. Again, I agree with you: I want someone who can answer these questions because he can apply generalized knowledge about algos and data-structures. But I am not confident tests which rely on pre-fabricated and well known puzzles will give me that.

jiveturkey 5y ago

a) sure and that's why you aren't literally administering an IQ test. it's highly subjective and flawed. so? b) of course it is! no dispute whatsoever. that's why it's 6 months to become productive in any new job in the first place. But you want someone that can BECOME familiar and can UNDERSTAND the framework du jour. When I hire an appliance repairman I want a guy that understands how the machine WORKS and can troubleshoot it from that knowledge base. Not someone that can swap in a fuse as long as the machine tells him which fuse is bad. I want someone who is knowledgeable with DISHWASHERS not someone that is an expert in MIELE seeing as I have a BOSCH or I've modified my miele beyond recognition anymore. If you need seat warmers the story is different. Then sure, you just want a miele certified repairman.

usrbinbash 5y ago
I think we are completely in agreement about what constitutes skill, and what companies should look for in candidates. The point where I think we disagree, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is: are LC style questions an effective testing method for these skills. I say no, they are not, for 2 reasons: a) implementing something like a non-trivial graph algorithm doesn't come up often in day-2-day work, and if it comes up, even some experienced developers look it up, just to make sure they got it right from memory. To borrow your dishwasher-analogy: I want the repairmen to know how a generalized dishwasher works, so he can repair Miele, Bosch, whathaveyou, but I don't need him to be able to program the DWs microcontroller on a whiteboard, or forge one of the pipes with nothing but a firepit, a hammer, anvil, crucible and some copper-scrap. b) since all these questions are known problems, both in their solution AND their usage as test questions, we are facing a "learning for the test" dilemma: people can, and many do, just memorize these answers to pass interviews, same as many students in standardized test environments just learn how to pass the tests. This is fundamentally different from understanding the subject. Again, I agree with you: I want someone who can answer these questions because he can apply generalized knowledge about algos and data-structures. But I am not confident tests which rely on pre-fabricated and well known puzzles will give me that.