16 ms·
We analyzed 100K technical interviews to see where the best performers work
- seoaeu 5y agoIt would be interesting to show error bars on the graphs. Seeing 95% confidence intervals would give a much better idea of whether we're looking at meaningful signal or just noise
- valleyjo 5y agoMy conclusion so that Dropbox has a lot of smart people who want to leave. Higher numbers of interviewees means more folks want to leave and are practicing to do so.
- rch 5y agoLooks like Dropbox has trouble retaining tech talent?
- leeny 5y agoAuthor here. We didn't publish a histogram showing how many users we have from each company, so I guess you'll have to trust me on this one. Dropbox has waaaay fewer engineers on interviewing.io per capita than some of the other companies... many of whom didn't make the top ten list. In our experience, they're quite good at retaining talent.
- horsawlarway 5y agoDoesn't this exact comment undercut your results fairly heavily? You're admitting that it's much more likely dropbox is a statistical anomaly because of fewer data points, rather than a robust data set.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cgearhart 5y agoOr simply that they have significant bias in their interview process for selecting candidates with strong interview skills. At that point it’s tautological—if you only select people who ace interviews then you’ll have a bunch of people who ace interviews.
- smrtinsert 5y agoI remember seeing a job description that was something like must be self starter, enjoy high energy postive environment! enjoy coding in RoR etc To me this reads like legacy Rails codebase people are too scared to touch that's always causing fires. No thanks.
- overrun11 5y agoThere has never been any rails code at Dropbox
- jstx1 5y ago> There’s also the issue of selection bias. Maybe we’re just getting people who really feel like they need practice and aren’t an indicative slice of engineers at that company. Or that your interview preparation platform prepares candidates better for Dropbox's interview process than it does for Microsoft's. Or that the people who were confident in their interview skills for Facebook decided not to use your platform. Or that these companies have different interview processes and selection criteria (they obviously do) so ranking "best" based on performance on different tests doesn't tell you that much. There's hundreds of different ways to slice this data to come up with different hypotheses about what's actually occurring.
- leeny 5y agoAuthor here. The data is mostly drawn from how people who work at these companies do in mock interviews rather than how our users do in real interviews with these companies.
- tedivm 5y agoThe implication in your blog post doesn't make that clear- > At interviewing.io, we’ve hosted over 100K technical interviews, split between mock interviews and real ones.
- leeny 5y agoI'll see if I can word that better. The real interviews in this case were where the interviewEE was from the company, not the interviewER
- wavesounds 5y agoThere's still the selection bias of who volunteers to do these mock interviews. Probably its the people who want practice interviewing and at dropbox those are the top performers who want to "move up" to a Google, while at Google it's the people who aren't cutting it and know they are going to have to find another job soon.
- itronitron 5y ago
- unpopular42 5y agoAlternatively, s/where the best performers work/where the best performers run from/
- cscurmudgeon 5y agoThis study assumes that the companies have similar rates of people wanting to leave.
- WYepQ4dNnG 5y agoI think people put too much effort and time in this whole interview business. My suggestion, based on my experience, is to spend a reasonable time like a month, brushing up on most common data structures and algo. Then just take your chances. Rinse and repeat.
- jonshariat 5y agoDepends on your goal, some people want as many high offers as they can to drive up their comp even higher. When you're young it might be worth it but to me the cost/benefit isn't worth spending months over preparing.
- pizza234 5y agoI have exactly the opposite opinion, for couple of reasons: 1. interviews are black boxes - there's no feedback; getting feedback from a professional interviewer is the best way to understand one's weaknesses 2. dealing with pressure in simulated environment can help (a lot, for some) to handle pressure in a real one. I had no idea, for example, why I didn't fare well in a certain type of interview, until I did a mock one.
- bckr 5y agoI think interview practice with real interviewers and expert feedback is an excellent investment.
- WYepQ4dNnG 5y agoMy strategy is simple: I do interview practice by simply interviewing with companies that I am not really interested in joining. That allows me to practice not only the technical interview but also all other steps involved. Last time I interviewed, I did 7 of these interviews, targeting: startups, pre-ipo, mid public companies, 2 of the FAANG I would never work for ... I did that while prepping for interviewing at the companies I was really interested in working for. And eventually it all worked out and got a few offers, of which two from FAANG of which one from one of the two FAANG I really wanted to join.
- adossi 5y agoNo Facebook/Meta? That’s a little surprising to me.
- bagels 5y agoIn all the graphs save one.
- sirmike_ 5y agoHonestly the only thing I see out of this is that Dropbox is a huge paying customer of this service.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- robbywashere_ 5y agoThe fallacy to these findings and conclusions is that you're measuring processes of your own brand and flavor; the biases are so deep you likely don't recognize them. 'technical', 'problem solving', 'communication' these are all of your own construction, setting, presentation and scoring. Look at the failings of the IQ test for example. I'm curious if people just really need to learn the talk and the walk of a silicon valley employee to land a job at a FAANG.
- pas 5y ago> Look at the failings of the IQ test for example. can you elaborate on that please?
- stale2002 5y ago> The fallacy to these findings and conclusions is that you're measuring processes of your own brand and flavor > Look at the failings of the IQ test for example. You are mis-interpreting the point of all of this. This website does practice interviews. It doesn't measure how good of an engineer someone is, or how smart they are, and they don't claim to do so. Instead, it measures how good they are at tech interviews. And for that purpose, the study works well enough.
- nevermindiguess 5y agoI would never want the best developers. Imagine the giant pain in the back of these primadonna always thinking they can get paid more in their next job. And how you should give them this or that, or how you should change your development stack, language, processes, chair color, etc. I only need very few geniuses and a lot of normal ones. 80/20, remember?!
- vdnkh 5y agoWhy do you think the best engineers are hard to work with?
- 1270018080 5y agoYour definition of best engineer doesn't sound like they're the best engineer.
- mcbuilder 5y agoSo, the best developers are always primadonna's now? Maybe the ones who grind leetcode all the time because they have something to prove are the primadonas, and you are somehow selecting for them. For skills, balanced team makes sense. You put a 10x type person in a room full of 0.5x people then yeah they'll start complaining about the chair color because the job sucks and they would kill for the chance to get on a better team.
- b20000 5y agothis
- abeppu 5y agoThe good news for you is if the target is to hire mediocre developers, you're likely to hit it.
- criddell 5y agoDamn, you must have had some rough hires. The very best people I've ever worked with don't fit any of those characteristics you've mentioned. Although I will say if a developer of yours wants a different chair, get them a better chair. They aren't that expensive and they are durable. Sometimes the overhead of getting $1000 purchases approved adds up to almost the same as the purchase itself. Give your developers some leeway to order equipment, software, books, etc... without approval up to some reasonable limit. It won't cost the company that much and your people will be happier and feel trusted.
- vmception 5y ago> If you’ve hired engineers from some of the companies in this post, have they performed better than others? It should be: have you hired engineers from interview.io This author is sadly blinded by the echo chamber of their own creation
- kderbyma 5y agothis is laughable to me. Dropbox is so bad on all accounts. it's my least favourite cloud storage product
- hparadiz 5y agoThey used to be the best but then ran their client software into the ground. Weirdly the Linux client is still the old school one and since I only use Linux it's fine for me.
- b20000 5y agoyou should have analyzed 100k interviews to figure out how to reverse the leetcode trend
- seabriez 5y ago"best performers work" With a title like that you really just cannot take this study seriously lol. Not to say it's not interesting but that is one crazy claim, at best title should be "most effective interviewees." Also, I work in FANG but signed up for this website and can't even participate, so how you chose all these candidates is also questionable.
- tmp_anon_22 5y agoThe logic being "They work at Google/Dropbox/etc... therefore they are the best performers" really irks me.
- yrgulation 5y agoThe author confuses successful products with high performing tech and high performing engineers. I’ve met many brilliant indie engineers that build highly performant code that almost no one knows about yet it provides these people with a steady stream of income and they would never work at faang or unicorns.
- criddell 5y agoI was thinking the best performers may very well be at one of those companies, but there's a pretty good chance that they never did any kind of coding interview. Maybe they were hired through a merger or acquisition or perhaps their reputation or portfolio is more than enough.
- overrun11 5y agoI don't see this claim being made anywhere. The article claims the opposite: the best performers on their technical interview happen to be from Dropbox/Google etc.
- spupe 5y agoMany others have commented on possible biases here. That's true, but I also find this a really interesting observation based on a huge dataset. Once you can correlate it to actual job performance - performance reviews, whether you were fired or not, maybe even salary -, it might be one of the best ways to see if technical interviews actually measure anything significant.
- sublimefire 5y agoEvery big corp has that data. Remember Google ditching brainteaser questions due to the lack of correlation between the interview and job performance.
- magneticnorth 5y agoThis is super interesting! Worth noting that another possible title is "... where the best performers were trying to leave during the study timeframe". Really interesting to see dropbox so high - would be curious to see some other data to corroborate that they (at least used to) employ the best engineers. From my time interviewing, I've seen clusters of very good candidates often be more reflective of which top companies were having a hard time, internally or externally. There was a while where my company hired a lot of people from Uber; right now we're getting Amazon and Facebook/Meta.
- WYepQ4dNnG 5y ago> hired a lot of people from Uber; right now we're getting Amazon and Facebook/Meta. good luck with that
- lhnz 5y agoIt's interesting that Google was not higher for communication. Aren't they known as the big tech company with the "writing culture"? I guess 'communication' means something different here.
- renewiltord 5y agoI wonder if people give folks high communication scores as a consolation prize. Like, “he didn’t do well on anything else but he can talk well”. Anyway, interesting results. Let me do some Dropbox outreach and see how they are.
- duxup 5y agoI wonder about when you don’t need “the best”. Everyone needs solid role players too… Nobody ever talks about getting good, but not “the best”.
- chewbacha 5y agoOof, non-zeroed charts are very deceptive in enlarging differences that might be within the error margins.
- jenoer 5y agoI was curious what one of these would look like as a "regular" chart. Here's what it looks like: https://imgur.com/a/BkzEoGV https://imgur.com/a/BkzEoGV
- mooreds 5y agoThanks for that. Still looks significant, but much less striking.
- drc500free 5y agoIn this case, is 0% passing really a meaningful bar? You could flip the chart upside-down and do it on fail rates, and the differences would look like this.
- kieselguhr_kid 5y agoI'm glad to see this getting roasted in the comments, as it's a really good example of how companies put out self-serving pseudo-statistical nonsense in an effort to promote themselves. There's no effort to quantify what "technical" or "communication" skills are - these are left to the interpretation of a the interviewer. It makes no effort to show where these engineers are going, what the interview process they're completing looks like, what impact demographics had on this, etc. I find this stuff repugnant. It perpetuates the myth that there's something really special about Silicon Valley engineers, while making only lazy and perfunctory efforts to examine any alternative explanations than "this is where the rockstar ninja coders work." Shameful.
- ttyprintk 5y agoAt least they left in the "Unemployed" category.
- rootusrootus 5y ago> It perpetuates the myth that there's something really special about Silicon Valley engineers Does this myth still have much traction? If anything, my general regard for engineers in the bay area has steadily declined in the last few years. There are so many really worthless folks who have only figured out how look like they have a clue, but go any deeper and they flail. I know I'm painting with a broad brush, and that's not fair, but most of the great engineers I work with are at various other places around the country, not California.
- kieselguhr_kid 5y agoPersonally, as a (now relocated) Bay Area native, I agree. Over, I think there's still a lot of prestige for large Silicon Valley firms, even if some of the gloss has justifiably started to fade. This article certainly assumes that myth is still in place.
- kjeetgill 5y agoHey, it's not our fault! Where else are posers gonna flock to to pose? I swear, even with all the remote work, more than 95%* of the people that worked here 5 years ago still do. We live here. * made up statistic.
- decebalus1 5y agoI cannot take any of this seriously. - First of all, it assumes that `interviewing.io` is some sort of certification standard (which I'm willing to bet is the actual point of publicizing these 'studies' in the first place. It's 'fact' manufacturing) - Then there's selection bias about engineers actually using one platform vs the other - Touting the data set size in order to give the 'study' some credibility is a red flag for me. You can analyze millions of the same technical interview and deduce all sorts of conclusions. - The use of 'best performers' is deceitful. It means 'best performers in the interview context'. But using it in the context of where do they work, it implies something like 'the best performing engineers are at company X'. Which is bullshit. More like 'best trained engineers to pass these interviews work at company X'. Garbage. I'm flagging this as it's nothing more than self-serving marketing.
- mooreds 5y agoOr maybe this is a signal to short dropbox, since so many of their high performers are interviewing?
- laluser 5y agoI work there. Our attrition is not any different than other companies. We have magnitudes less engineers than the other companies mentioned, so most likely it's the few that interview on average are better from Dropbox than the average of other companies. That's all.
- listless 5y agoDoes...does Dropbox own interviewing.io?
- dxbydt 5y agoI honestly don't care which company retains the best performers. Is none of my business. Maybe if you are an investor in these companies, might be a useful signal to know such trivia. But from a candidate standpoint, this page is super useful - https://interviewing.io/recordings https://interviewing.io/recordings
- Simon_O_Rourke 5y agoIf Dropbox engineers are so good across the board, why are they interviewing at all? Surely the desire to move away from this kind of technical nirvana would be almost zero?
- jldugger 5y agoDropbox was famously leading the SWE comp charts[1]. In particular, they focused on equity grants both pre- and post-IPO. Well, live by the equity sword, die by the equity sword: SP500 is up 16 percent in the past year, DBX is down 10 percent. Even over the long term, DBX is down 15 percent since their IPO 5 years ago, while SP500 is up 77 percent. It's the kind of performance that results in layoffs[2], which will probably hit your most expensive / experienced engineers first. Glassdoor ratings suggest remote work did not go well when combined with the layoff. [1]: https://medium.com/@paysa/thinking-inside-the-box-spotlight-on-dropbox-jobs-and-salary-trends-3800408305ce https://medium.com/@paysa/thinking-inside-the-box-spotlight-... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dropbox-layoffs/dropbox-to-layoff-11-of-workforce-coo-to-step-down-idUSKBN29I1X0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dropbox-layoffs/dropbox-t...
- paxys 5y agoWhat this really tells me is that the best engineerineers at Dropbox are looking to quit.
- sublimefire 5y ago^^^ this LOL
- agumonkey 5y agoInteresting interpretation :) But where would the best go ? where the worst engineers are ? to appear even smarter ? or just a bit below ? to avoid toxic workplace.
- i_love_music 5y agoYes, best interpretation yet. This data is whack. I would take it all with a massive planet size grain of rice.
- pgroves 5y agoAnd the implication is the 'quality' of engineers at the companies is actually reversed - the top performers at Dropbox are struggling and leaving while the under performers at FANG are struggling and leaving.
- gcheong 5y ago"If things go well, they skip right to the technical interview at real companies (which is also fully anonymous)." So the most I'll get out of this is to skip the initial screening interview and jump straight to the "real" interview? Or do I even get that?
- toddm 5y agoSo our best and brightest are working for a company whose product is a GUI for an FTP site. Good to know.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- commandlinefan 5y ago> our best and brightest interviewing.io's best and brightest.
- gcheong 5y ago"Of course, the really interesting question in all of this is the holy grail of technical recruiting: Does performance in interviews reliably predict on-the-job performance? " And until you can really say for sure this is the case, any speculation about the value of technical interviews other than just being a barrier to entry is really moot.
- w0mbat 5y agoWhy does Dropbox software ship an amateurish Electron app then?
- brimble 5y agoSometimes I look at the credits lists for very impressive, native 90s desktop programs, that were made in a reasonable amount of time by a small group of people who, at least to some degree, had worse tools than we do now, for a smaller market and lower pay. Usually to be shipped on CD, so they even had to mostly work and not have too many bugs at launch, on top of that. And I wonder WTF happened to our industry and what the armies of programmers at all these companies are doing.
- subsubzero 5y agoDropbox was known as a hard place to interview since 2014, the tech companies that had the hardest technical interviews are Quora, Palantir and Dropbox(honorable mention fog creek)(this was from a few years back so things may have changed). Just because the company makes it extremely difficult to get in does not mean the company is generally all around awesome or pays great or employs the greatest engineers. It optimizes for people who generally come straight out of an elite CS program with those learned concepts fresh in their mind, and for people who grind out on leetcode or who are great at interviewing. Of the three companies I mentioned above I would not work for any of them now.
- paxys 5y agoYeah "we are more selective and exclusive than Google and Facebook" was Palantir's whole schtick when they originally took off. And a lot of very smart engineers bought it. Turns out it takes a lot more than a high leetcode bar for your interviews to run a successful company.
- FranksTV 5y agoWhen developers change roles so frequently, being an employer with a reputation for being full of smart people is a good recruiting tactic. Not because you get good work done, but because people will apply because you look good on a resume.
- babyshake 5y agoAre you suggesting that these jobs don't mainly consist of quickly banging out dynamic programming and DFS/BFS traversal algorithms as quickly as possible while a stranger stares at you? From interview experience, I assume this is what engineers mostly do at these companies all day.
- mrits 5y agoWe make you prove you know how to implement things correctly in the off chance we ever give you enough time to do so.
- 5y ago
- jameshart 5y agoAll this post says is that among the candidates who scored highest on this model, a higher proportion worked at these companies. But there's no inverse analysis: of people who worked at these companies, how predictive was that overall of a higher score on this particular assessment? 'Our five highest scores ever were all people who wanted to leave FooCo' tells you little about the overall quality of FooCo employees. Maybe the rest of them are terrible and these five needed to get away?
- hussainbilal 5y agoRather than showing the top ten for statistical significance, wouldn't it make more sense to use PCA on the ratings and show each component's top 10 instead?
- gcheong 5y agoDoes this happen in any other field? If I was a doctor and wanted to work at some other company, would I need to study the MCAT every year in order to pass a screening interview based on one possible question? What's the equivalent in other fields? Closest I can think of is an acting audition but even then they give you the script beforehand. I'm beginning to think that the industry somehow settled on this approach not so much as a skills verification process but, by making the process so onerous on the candidate, talent retention is a lot easier.
- visarga 5y ago> I'm beginning to think that the industry somehow settled on this approach not so much as a skills verification process but, by making the process so onerous on the candidate, talent retention is a lot easier. There are plenty of applicants who just can't do the job, and the cost of restarting the search all over again is high. It's important for a team to vet their new hires.
- commandlinefan 5y ago> applicants who just can't do the job While that definitely matches my observations, the current interview grind: a) filters out people who can do the job too and b) somehow also manages not to filter out people who can't, either.
- overrun11 5y agoIs that avoidable though? It's not perfect but I'm not convinced any of the alternatives are any better.
- gcheong 5y agoI’ve had interviews where I implemented a small feature on an existing application. It didn’t take any longer than your typical hour-long algorithmic implementation interview. Given that we don’t have post-hire data on any of these practices, my hypothesis is the one that most closely resembles the actual work would give the best signal as to whether that person would be able to do the job or not.
- steven-xu 5y agoKudos to interviewing.io to share this analysis. I agree with the many issues in methodology and analysis that others have raised here, and I agree there's a risk that a face-value reading of the blog post is highly misleading. But this is true for all data, and poo-pooing the analysis without crediting the sharing just leads to less sharing. To be clear, I'm supportive of the criticism, but let's also give credit where it's due. Technical interview performance is a high stakes field for which almost all data is cloistered in individual hiring companies or secretive gatekeepers. In my mind, all efforts, even imperfect ones, to share data is a great step here. We should encourage them to continue to share, including pursuing options to anonymize the raw data for open analysis. The field deserves more transparency and open discussion to push us all to be better.
- lowbloodsugar 5y agoHow is it that Amazon was better than both Facebook and Google overall, but worse when comparing Technical, Problem Solving and Communication. What are the other undisclosed ratings that makes Amazon better overall?
- lamontcg 5y agoGoing to be real interesting to see how I do at technical interviews whenever I decide to jump back into the job market. At the job I'm leaving tomorrow, I just did a 2 hour long video session / training where I started by teaching how to read call graphs, and that led to over a hour of me trying to sort out a horrible performance issue in real time. The problem, solution and the iterated debugging to deal with all the edge conditions that the extensive unit tests called out (and I wrote all the unit tests that blew up, so I get to take credit for all that -- although I also wrote the bug I fixed) should show that I'm very high functioning engineer. And I had identified the problem previously at a higher level and had a fix that papered over the problem, but during the video I correctly figured out that the real source of the problem was deeper in the code, and had existed before the change which surfaced the problem, and managed to do a data-driven analysis to track down the perf bug and go from 15% of CPU time in one subsystem to 1% of CPU time in the same subsystem for a 15x speedup on my problem (and probably closer to a 90x speedup for the customers who were reporting it--including a large customer everyone is familiar with here due to headlines they're involved in). Meanwhile I forgot that it was obj.send(:method, *args) in ruby and tried to obj.call(:method, *args) and had to look that up because my brain was derping a bit on that, and the night before I forgot it was JSON.generate in ruby and not encode/decode and just in general my brain is a mash of too many different programming language syntaxes. At one point I caught myself trying to use `%` for comments because I had been doing Matlab writing an Iterated Chebychev Picard Method IVP ODE solver the prior weekend. If I can't work with the command line or an IDE and with google I'm just going to be a mess of trivial mistakes due to crossed wires. I've also never reversed a linked list in my life and the correct answer to that question is probably to never use a linked list due to TLB cache thrashing at the very least.
- pnathan 5y agoI always enjoy your work, @leeny. I remember quite a few years ago you were working as a recruiter and I liked working with you then, although we didn't wind up with a placement for me. Best wishes!
- k__ 5y agoNow throw in a bunch of engineers from one of the countless small businesses so we get a feeling for what those numbers actually mean.
- calchris42 5y agoDespite all the caveats / problems on statistical significance and methodology, 1 key takeaway: “Unemployed” engineers communicate better than those at Uber, Twitter, Amazon, and Google. :)
- oneepic 5y agoNot to mention every other company outside of the top 10.
- numbers 5y agoThis reminds me, a friend of mine recently indicated that Dropbox has become an Amazon graveyard due to the mass exodus of talent from Dropbox to other companies that feel like Dropbox did about 5 years ago. Without their perks and fancy food, Dropbox is a boring product company with not much upside at this point.
- nosefrog 5y agoAs an ex-Dropboxer, Dropbox asks legitimately tough questions. I only got in because I got asked the exact set of questions that I could figure out the answer for, once I joined and went through interview training I realized I would have failed about half of the questions that Dropboxers ask. I'm also not sure how it is at other companies (at Google but haven't gone through interview training yet), but Dropbox's rubrics are also pretty strict. Doing "well" on a question requires getting through multiple parts normally with close to zero bugs that you don't catch yourself.
- paxys 5y agoYou just described the entirety of the tech hiring experience. Sure some people are bonafide geniuses that can crack the hardest problems in their sleep. The majority of tech workers, however, are ones who got lucky with the specific combination of questions asked in the interview. Maybe they had seen the question before. Maybe the solution just "clicked". This is why the best strategy for acing such interviews is – just apply to a lot of companies.
- ctvo 5y agoOf course, but this is a gradient. Struggling startup may ask a question that 80% of engineers are capable of answering (through luck, exposure, experience -- whatever dimensions). Dropbox asks difficult questions, and it's hard to discern why. I don't believe the problems at Dropbox are particularly difficult relative to its peers. I don't think they innovate at a clip that's outsized, etc.. But they do this, and their engineering culture focuses on this.
- nosefrog 5y agoThe joke internally is that Dropbox asks lots of concurrency questions because the Dropbox client has 50+ threads :-) That said, I think what I noticed at Dropbox is that asking lots of tough questions gets you a lot of pretty talented folks who are very interested in solving hard technical problems. So from an infrastructure side, Dropbox was overflowing with talented people. From the product side, though, it was harder for teams to staff frontend projects or make progress when their ideas were challenged by infra.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 3minus1 5y agoThis just sounds like Dropbox, Google have a similar interview to interviewing.io. So if you're able to clear the Dropbox interview bar, you'll do well on their test. It doesn't really say anything about general work performance, only performance on a specific interview.
- MathMonkeyMan 5y agoThere's something that I like about the writing style. I can't put my finger on it. "Sober," maybe.
- bradlys 5y agoInteresting how everyone here reads the title differently than me. I read “where the best performers work” as not where do the best coders/employees/whatever work… I read it as people who perform the best work. Where do people who do the best performance work? And in the context of interviewing - I don’t find this particularly weird to look at. Interviews are a performance. That said - I’m apparently a weirdo! Also, limiting this to companies with 50+ employees who have used the platform is going to definitely only let very large companies in the analysis. Even where I’m at now (1500 eng) I would be surprised if 50+ had used the platform because 75%+ were hired in the last 1-2 years. Also - the way everyone here critiques the rating system - what a joke. You think the rubric at these big companies is really any better? You just find a way to shove your core feeling into the rubric and that’s it.
- mbrodersen 5y agoI have worked with a few developers who went on to work for FAANG companies. They were OK but not the best I have worked with. They did however have an inflated opinion of their own skills. Perhaps that helps when interviewing?