4 ms·

We hire with projects derived from the specific frameworks we use. It's the best way to give them a taste of actual work. We also give people time to learn the

by mrkurt 5y ago

We hire with projects derived from the specific frameworks we use. It's the best way to give them a taste of actual work. We also give people time to learn the framework we're using as part of the hiring process. And we encourage them to do that if they want! People with a tremendous amount of experience in our framework-of-choice have an advantage. But they're also more likely to be immediately valuable. It's imperfect, but it works well for us. And you'd be surprised how many people float right through the technical assessment learning as they go.

xiphias2 5y ago
,, Tech interviews suck. Engineers grind LeetCode for months just so they can write the optimal quicksort solution in 15 minutes, but on the job you just import it from some library like you're supposed to.’’ I was responding to this negative part of the introduction. Actually all of the mentioned frameworks are disallowed at Google (where leet code style interviews were introduced), because they are not fit for serving billions of people in the latency budget in the search/ads stack. If you would rephrase it that for most companies leet code style interviews don’t make sense (and probably are your customers), I would agree, but the few where it makes sense are really important companies.
- garyjlin 5y ago
  I think you make a good point here, you're right, because leet code style interviews don't work for most companies, but they do work for some companies with specific needs. I recently spoke to a prospective client where they mentioned they need a quick way to filter through hundreds of candidates pre-funnel and they only want to know if they can write basic code. If you can write basic code, you pass and your resume gets a look. They specifically didn't want anything too deep or difficult. I actually recommended that they use a tool like HackerRank or LeetCode instead of us because it made more sense for their use case.

by mrkurt 5y ago

xiphias2 5y ago

,, Tech interviews suck. Engineers grind LeetCode for months just so they can write the optimal quicksort solution in 15 minutes, but on the job you just import it from some library like you're supposed to.’’ I was responding to this negative part of the introduction. Actually all of the mentioned frameworks are disallowed at Google (where leet code style interviews were introduced), because they are not fit for serving billions of people in the latency budget in the search/ads stack. If you would rephrase it that for most companies leet code style interviews don’t make sense (and probably are your customers), I would agree, but the few where it makes sense are really important companies.

garyjlin 5y ago
I think you make a good point here, you're right, because leet code style interviews don't work for most companies, but they do work for some companies with specific needs. I recently spoke to a prospective client where they mentioned they need a quick way to filter through hundreds of candidates pre-funnel and they only want to know if they can write basic code. If you can write basic code, you pass and your resume gets a look. They specifically didn't want anything too deep or difficult. I actually recommended that they use a tool like HackerRank or LeetCode instead of us because it made more sense for their use case.