9 ms·

Nobody likes being judged in an interview, but on the other hand it has been fascinating to watch how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for

Nobody likes being judged in an interview, but on the other hand it has been fascinating to watch how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people who aren’t necessarily born into situations that usher them straight into prestigious tech jobs. Yes, there is an entire industry around interview prep. Yet it’s also possible to do all of your interview prep without ever giving a dollar to anyone. LeetCode basic is free. There are numerous free websites that will walk you through the solutions to LeetCode problems. There are countless YouTube videos helping build interview skills. Tech interviews aren’t necessarily fun, but I actually think it’s great that they’ve allowed us to move past the situations where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company. Letting people compete on a level playing field of technical interviews, albeit imperfect, is one of the things I’ve come to appreciate about the tech industry.

someelephant 5y ago
I also appreciate that anybody who puts the work in can get a good job in tech. But I don't follow your reasoning that the current tech interview process supports that in some way that another process could not.
- lbotos 5y ago
  Sure, but at the other end of the spectrum you get "know a guy" interviews where interviewers just hire their friends if they are the only person in the hiring process. Where I work (and even other co's my friends work at) even if you wanna hire a friend as a candidate, your friend still has to go through a full interview process. What's the alternative look like?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    As someone in tech but not (professionally) a developer I have to confess that all my (few) jobs since grad school were of a “know a (senior) guy/gal” persuasion. Haven’t had a really serious interview since the 80s. Hav I optimized salary? Likely not but things have worked OK. But it’s very “unfair.”
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The other side looks like this: That person gets hired and fits in with the team. The team puts more effort into mentoring because they are friends and you end up with a strong teammate. Team made of friends tend to level each other up or cover for weak areas. Teams of strangers need to fit in socially. Relationships level teams up quicker so if you are hiring every 6 months gets friends if you are hiring every 10 years it matters less.
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    I don't agree with "hiring a friend" but I can certainly say that nothing has higher signal value than previous coworking experience with someone. The validated network of your current high performers is the best place to look for more.
    - lbotos 5y ago
      I agree. So should that person get a "skip the vetting process" pass? At my current org, they don't. They go through the hiring process like everyone else, and the person that recommended them is not involved until they are hired or not. They will very likely be hired because they are good, but the process makes sure of it.
      - YZF 5y ago
        Or the process rejects known good people? A middle ground that I follow is to go back to the person referring and ask are we stupid for not hiring this person? Then we try and reconcile the interview performance with the recommendations. Another thing that I generally do is never recommend to anyone great that I know to come work where I work. Nothing good comes out of that. They already have good jobs. There is some probability they won't be as successful in the new place. I would deviate from that under certain scenarios but as a rule I would not initiate that sort of change. If they come to me I'd happily recommend them (rarely happens, as I was saying, they have good jobs). Referrals are tricky especially when there's incentives like referral bonuses and everyone starts referring their cousin's friend's uncle's neighbor (some other problems in that sort of culture but we digress).
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > Sure, but at the other end of the spectrum you get "know a guy" interviews And code puzzle style interviews prevent that how exactly? If the boss's boss want's his golf buddys friends nephew hired, goes to HR and says "hire that person", then that person will go through the same interview process as everyone else, presented with the same puzzle questions as everyone else, and do as good or bad as his preparation allows him to do, just like everyone else... ...and then get hired no matter what, because, just like everyone else, HR people want to keep their jobs as well.
- paxys 5y ago
  Well if there is such a process that does a better job than the current one at scale then the billions of dollars spent researching the problem at tech recruiting departments haven't unearthed it yet.
lampshades 5y ago
I agree. I didn't come from a prestigious family and I didn't go to a prestigious school. I graduated with less than a 2.0 GPA because I didn't care when I started school. Because of the standardization of tech interviews, I'm able to work anywhere. I don't think it would have been as easy for someone like me 20 years ago. Then again, I have no idea.
- watwut 5y ago
  It would probably be easier 20 years ago.
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    Yeah, the hiring goalposts have move significantly from 20 years ago, as in the bar is now much higher.
  - hnfong 5y ago
    Doubtful. 20 years ago, the dot com bubble had just burst, there was no money in tech, and jobs were sparse enough that employers tend to require a CS degree and they'd have no shortage of applicants. Microsoft, one of the few (remaining) leading software companies, was famous for asking brain teasers like "Why are manhole covers round?" (I'm not sure whether they asked difficult programming questions -- IIRC Google started the trend later) The rush of people trying to enter the software industry only happened in the past couple years I think. The demand due to the tech boom drove up both the pay and the numbers of workers employed. Sure, it's probably even harder to enter the top tier companies, but I believe there are much more opportunities than 20 years ago.
    - watwut 5y ago
      What I remember from around that time, if you breathed and was confident, you could get the job. It did not required as much preparation as people put into it now.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lumost 5y ago
The problem is that this has become the primary and sole measure by which we're judging candidates. This leads to a pathological condition at many large tech companies where the outputs of an engineer do not matter for their career. Until you hit the Senior/Staff level, no one really gives a crap if you were editing yaml files, toiling on a legacy app, or building the highest scale app on the planet. It just matters that you can pass the standard tech interview. Now that people understand this, they are starting to optimize their careers at a company to simply do the minimum until they move externally for higher pay. You can bounce between reasonable tech companies doing literally nothing for higher and higher pay by simply switching once per year. I suspect that we'll see a steady increase in attention paid for deliverables and a dialing down of the leetcode arms race over the next 5 years. The signal to noise ratio of this interview type is falling.
- riku_iki 5y ago
  > Until you hit the Senior/Staff level, no one really gives a crap if you were editing yaml files, toiling on a legacy app, or building the highest scale app on the planet. It just matters that you can pass the standard tech interview. But big tech all have quarterly OKRs, performance plans and terminations for low performers, and managers/leads are interested to have strong contributors in team to deliver results, and let low performers to go..
  - sedev 5y ago
    Please clarify as to whether you are speaking sarcastically or earnestly in this post.
  - lumost 5y ago
    At big tech this takes time. In some companies a lot of time. It’s also typically done as a comparative process across engineers. If half the team is simply doing interview prep it’s unlikely management fires half the team.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    > big tech all have quarterly OKRs, performance plans and terminations for low performers ...none of which information is shared with future employers. To do so is even considered a legally actionable violation of privacy in most cases.
RyEgswuCsn 5y ago
> where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company Critics of the tech interview are certainly not against the merit-based selection --- it's more like the 1.5x engineers fear that the standardised interviews are being abused to allow 1x engineers who are "just-in-for-the-money" to appear as 2x, making their lives harder. Meanwhile, 10x engineers probably are not bothered by this at all since 2x isn't enough of a threat.
- YZF 5y ago
  I think this bothers everyone in the industry. Even if you're a "10x" you're working 120% of your time on fairly specialized things. Now you have to put in extra work if you want to switch jobs. It creates friction. Maybe the 10x prepares for the interview in 2 days vs. the 1.5x taking 6 weeks but the 10x doesn't have 2 days and the 1.5x I guess has those 6 weeks ;) I wouldn't call the coding interview "merit-based" selection either. At least not until we show any sort of relationship between success at that style of interview and the stuff we think matters more. I don't think we're seeing any sort of boom of quality software that has followed the changes in the way we interview, if anything, the opposite. But you're exactly right in some sense. Back in the dot.com hay days we used to joke that if you had a pulse and could type you could land a tech job. It's sort of back to that. The industry needs a lot more good developers than what we have.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> prestigious tech jobs Tech jobs are well known for paying well (compared to the other jobs you can get if you’re not born into money) but have never been prestigious. Unless you’re considering the VP/CTO jobs that don’t involve algorithm solving and do involve being from the right Harvard fraternity.
- ketzo 5y ago
  This is true if you’re comparing exclusively within the tech field. The job title of “computer programmer” is extraordinarily prestigious compared to, say... barista, waiter, nurse, bus driver, police officer… Getting into “tech” is a very big deal compared to almost literally any other field that is not law/medicine.
neilv 5y ago
> how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people who aren’t necessarily born into situations that usher them straight into prestigious tech jobs. The underdog could get computer jobs before the current gatekeeping -- on enthusiasm, hard work, merit, and will. The gatekeeping started by favoring the affluent (suddenly, going into dotcoms made more sense than that Wall Street job), and now other people have to invest in playing catchup on bro rituals.
- YZF 5y ago
  I agree. Good people never had a problem getting a job. I got my first summer job writing code when I was in high school. My friend wrote commercial video games when in high school. Through history, if you were enthusiastic about writing software, and you were good at it, finding work was never a problem. It's always been finding those people that has been the problem. I would almost argue the opposite, that this process opens doors for people who are not good software developers to get good software jobs. Since you can relatively easily prep for a software interview but no amount of prepping makes you a really good developer. Whatever the coding interview process measures, it's not how good of a software engineer/developer you are.
- b20000 5y ago
  yeah, and that underdog now can no longer get a job on hard work and merit, because that is not what leetcode interviews reward. it also does not take into account any previous work done or any personal projects.
elvis10ten 5y ago
Level playing field? C’mon. A person using a premium resource most likely have higher quality material and sometimes access to a seasoned professional that can give personalized feedback. Who has more time to do leetcode? Who has a good network of peers to motivate them when they are not “feeling it”? Who is more likely to enjoy abstract puzzles/quizzes? A single mom in Philly or a wealthy Stanford grad? Would you also say take home projects are also a level playing field?
- xenihn 5y ago
  It's more level than literally everything else that pays comparatively. At least the single mom in Philly won't have the fact that she didn't go to Stanford completely invalidate her as a potential candidate when it comes to modern leetcode interviewing.
  - elvis10ten 5y ago
    Ha! OP said it’s a level playing field, I’m not arguing if it’s a better system than what you/him compare it to. Just like how I would argue take-home/side/past projects are an amazing signal compared to credentials. I won’t dare to say it’s a level playing field.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > At least the single mom in Philly won't have the fact that she didn't go to Stanford completely invalidate her as a potential candidate And when will the single mom in Philly find the time to memorize as many (or more, after all, its a competitive market) default-interview-questions, as someone born into wealth whith lots of free time on their hands and the financial resources to pay someone specializing in prepping them for exactly these interviews? So, what did really change?
    - xenihn 5y ago
      I don't see how this invalidates my original point, can you expand on your argument?
watwut 5y ago
> current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people who aren’t necessarily born into situations that usher them straight into prestigious tech jobs. The self taught programmers were always the thing. If anything, current interview style is giving advantage to those from elite universities - it tests exactly those skills.
b20000 5y ago
opened doors? you must be nuts. all it has done, is made it easier to discriminate candidates, turn a highly specialized field into a commodity, and put more power in the hands of tech companies, especially FAANGs. it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit.
- chii 5y ago
  > it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. i don't see how any of the above indirectly causes prevention of organization of a union. If it required you to get a degree to get a tech job, far fewer people would be available. Far fewer people would be able to transition from low paid jobs to a higher paid job such as tech. Making a specialized, technical field into a commodity is actually a global gain - even if those who used to enjoy a highly paid position gets their advantage lost because of such commoditization. Either they specialize into something that is even more valuable, or be lost amongst the commodity. Imagine if, during the iron age, the blacksmiths prevented the commoditization of industrial production.
  - b20000 5y ago
    just like the field of medicine or law owes you nothing, the tech industry owes you nothing. it does not need to solve your problems. it is annoying that people think it should. the reason that tech prep and tech programs and STEM are promoted, and kids are sold on “learn to code”, is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.
    - chii 5y ago
      > is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT. you say it like it's a bad thing. Lowering the cost of _anything_ is good for society overall. It makes this resource more affordable for all entities requiring such resources, and it increases total output. Doctors today costs too much, because there's a lobby group called the AMA that restricts entrants (rightly or wrongly). i would argue that it's better to have lower cost, because this service is valuable to people, and if the cost matches the value (or exceed the value), then some people will miss out on being able to utilize this resource.
gyulai 5y ago
> current style of tech interviews has opened doors for [...] people who aren’t [...] born [...] into prestigious tech jobs. I really take issue with this line of reasoning. The same thing was recently argued in relation to MIT going back to using SAT scores. The argument basically seems to be "Since no alternative to this is conceivable that isn't some form of racist/classist cronyism, this is actually the lesser evil". At some point in history, people probably said something like "Since no alternative to monarchy is conceivable that isn't some form of despotic warlordism, monarchy is actually pretty good". ...they just hadn't conceived of those alternatives yet. It sounds to me like simply a reflection of the political climate in the U.S. where there's a weird inversion of burden-of-proof whereby any decision making process is presumed a form of racist/classist cronyism unless proven otherwise. The more mechanized a decision making process is, the more amenable it is to this sort of proof. But I certainly don't want to live in the resulting dehumanized dystopia. Also, I'd question whether social reproduction is quantitatively a significant factor in selecting who tech jobs go to. The idea seems to be that engineer daddy gets son interested in engineering by doing science fair projects with him, sends him off to space camp, then pulls strings to get him into MIT and so forth. But, statistically, I'm expecting to have as many daughters as sons, and a daughter is statistically not going to be interested in tech. Even if it's a son, it's not clear whether he would have the personality traits and inclination. I wouldn't want to interfere with them either, as I'm not even sure that going into tech would be something I would want to do again if I could live my own life over. The latter is not true of wealth in general. I would always want my children to be wealthy, and they would always want to be wealthy, and handing over wealth is as easy as signing a piece of paper. These latter statements are oversimplifications, but they highlight how the analogy breaks down between social reproduction in relation to wealth in general and social reproduction in relation to having a prestigious tech job. -- Also, the question of whether tech jobs can be prestigious seems subjective to me, as there are a lot of negative stereotypes attached to tech.
onion2k 5y ago
Hiring at FAANGs isn't a matter of "pass the tech test and you win a job". There are lots of other parts to the hiring process. A recommendation from a person high-up in the company, or a Stanford degree, still carries weight. Leetcode is an additional barrier, that people with a privileged background can buy help to pass, and where having the resources to stop working to study full time is immensely useful. People who don't have wealthy parents or personal wealth can't do that. I believe Leetcode makes tech more exclusive, not less.
- ozzythecat 5y ago
  I’ll speak strictly to SDE roles at Amazon. Unless you’re recommended by a Senior VP, a recommendation or Stanford degree will not do much more than help you get an interview. A hiring manager can try to fight others on the interview loop and overrule a bar raiser, but they’re really putting themselves out there for you. Maybe they really fight for a candidate once or twice, but it’s not very common.
- gnarcoregrizz 5y ago
  For sure. I think it’s made the hiring market less liquid. I really did need to study 50+ leetcode questions to do well in an interview. I crashed and burned a few interviews and ended up resigning myself to the grind, and bang, I’d pass those early interviews no problem. It’s a unique tech adjacent skill that not everyone has time to practice. It certainly doesn’t mean you’re a bad engineer if you can’t leetcode. It’s a form of gatekeeping and hazing. It’s what you get when stem is hyped at every level of education. There are too many people gunning for tech. It attracts all the smart and ambitious students now. There is no programmer shortage.
usrbinbash 5y ago
> it has been fascinating to watch how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people And also closed the door for lots of smart, motivated people who are excellent engineers, but do badly in stressed up situations where they need to do something (coming up with an answer on the spot, usually w.o. being able to do any research) that the job they are being interviewed for rarely if ever actually demands of them. > to move past the situations where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_frying_pan_into_the_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_frying_pan_into_the...
- nojito 5y ago
  Nothing wrong with having a lower than 100% accuracy rate for hiring. The whole point of tech interviews are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills.
  - usrbinbash 5y ago
    > are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills. Indeed. And exactly how do code puzzle interviews accomplish that? Because here is the gist of what happens, as described in the article: The similarities to the test prep industry are very interesting. Is an algorithm interview reflective of how an engineer works in their day-to-day job? Along those lines, what is the SAT really measuring? Whenever I standardize tests, at some point the parameters of my standards become known. It becomes possible to prep for the test instead of what I want to test for.
    - nojito 5y ago
      Which is a good thing because it ensures you at least don't hire someone who you should not have.
      - usrbinbash 5y ago
        How does it ensure that exactly, when the testing methodology evaluates something different from what I want evaluated?
bgro 5y ago
Tech interviews remind me of employers saying to forget everything you’ve learned, kiddo. Heh, we do REAL work here! If you want to work for us you better be able to complete this leetcode question! You’re not a real engineer if you can’t! Then the real work is an awfully designed mostly front end disaster. Nobody knows how anything works. But they passed the interview somehow. I don’t get the people who do leetcode for fun or who get hyped up about it as an interview process. I guess they made it in life by cramming for tests just to forget it all immediately after. Wasting time memorizing tedious things that have no value is especially awful and draining for me. It’s not fair some people can just do that if they spend a small amount of effort and try. It’s a monumental impossible task for me when I’m otherwise exceptional with software engineering. I’d rather climb a mountain, to put it in perspective. I’d rather actually learn the concepts used on tests and be able to adapt them into my learning, rather than have a history test where I fill in an endless amount of blanks with the exact day, month, and year is somehow relevant or useful for anything. Does anyone actually process those types of questions as actual comprehensible dates instead of memorized strings that are better suited to memorize with a jingle?
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  I'm going through this right now after I promised myself for a long time that I wouldn't debase myself with this sort of interview process. The rewards are too much, I sold myself out, whatever. What I'm finding is that the leetcode isn't a memorization game, it reminds me more of my homework in grad school algorithms. Each of the problems is meant to tease out your practical understanding of an abstract concept. It certainly doesn't guarantee you'll be a good dev if you can pass leetcode type questions, and you're not necessarily a bad dev if you can't, but I can definitely see where performing well at leetcode is a strong signal about SWE fundamentals.
bluefirebrand 5y ago
> where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company. This absolutely still happens though. Those people will just get "fast tracked" through the process and allowed to skip steps. If there is even an interview at all. Nepotism is still alive and well even in software. Edit: Oh, or they will get hired as consultants / contractors at a high rate and get to add your company's name to their list of happy clients

someelephant 5y ago

I also appreciate that anybody who puts the work in can get a good job in tech. But I don't follow your reasoning that the current tech interview process supports that in some way that another process could not.

lbotos 5y ago
Sure, but at the other end of the spectrum you get "know a guy" interviews where interviewers just hire their friends if they are the only person in the hiring process. Where I work (and even other co's my friends work at) even if you wanna hire a friend as a candidate, your friend still has to go through a full interview process. What's the alternative look like?
- ghaff 5y ago
  As someone in tech but not (professionally) a developer I have to confess that all my (few) jobs since grad school were of a “know a (senior) guy/gal” persuasion. Haven’t had a really serious interview since the 80s. Hav I optimized salary? Likely not but things have worked OK. But it’s very “unfair.”
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The other side looks like this: That person gets hired and fits in with the team. The team puts more effort into mentoring because they are friends and you end up with a strong teammate. Team made of friends tend to level each other up or cover for weak areas. Teams of strangers need to fit in socially. Relationships level teams up quicker so if you are hiring every 6 months gets friends if you are hiring every 10 years it matters less.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  I don't agree with "hiring a friend" but I can certainly say that nothing has higher signal value than previous coworking experience with someone. The validated network of your current high performers is the best place to look for more.
  - lbotos 5y ago
    I agree. So should that person get a "skip the vetting process" pass? At my current org, they don't. They go through the hiring process like everyone else, and the person that recommended them is not involved until they are hired or not. They will very likely be hired because they are good, but the process makes sure of it.
    - YZF 5y ago
      Or the process rejects known good people? A middle ground that I follow is to go back to the person referring and ask are we stupid for not hiring this person? Then we try and reconcile the interview performance with the recommendations. Another thing that I generally do is never recommend to anyone great that I know to come work where I work. Nothing good comes out of that. They already have good jobs. There is some probability they won't be as successful in the new place. I would deviate from that under certain scenarios but as a rule I would not initiate that sort of change. If they come to me I'd happily recommend them (rarely happens, as I was saying, they have good jobs). Referrals are tricky especially when there's incentives like referral bonuses and everyone starts referring their cousin's friend's uncle's neighbor (some other problems in that sort of culture but we digress).
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > Sure, but at the other end of the spectrum you get "know a guy" interviews And code puzzle style interviews prevent that how exactly? If the boss's boss want's his golf buddys friends nephew hired, goes to HR and says "hire that person", then that person will go through the same interview process as everyone else, presented with the same puzzle questions as everyone else, and do as good or bad as his preparation allows him to do, just like everyone else... ...and then get hired no matter what, because, just like everyone else, HR people want to keep their jobs as well.
paxys 5y ago
Well if there is such a process that does a better job than the current one at scale then the billions of dollars spent researching the problem at tech recruiting departments haven't unearthed it yet.

lampshades 5y ago

I agree. I didn't come from a prestigious family and I didn't go to a prestigious school. I graduated with less than a 2.0 GPA because I didn't care when I started school. Because of the standardization of tech interviews, I'm able to work anywhere. I don't think it would have been as easy for someone like me 20 years ago. Then again, I have no idea.

watwut 5y ago
It would probably be easier 20 years ago.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  Yeah, the hiring goalposts have move significantly from 20 years ago, as in the bar is now much higher.
- hnfong 5y ago
  Doubtful. 20 years ago, the dot com bubble had just burst, there was no money in tech, and jobs were sparse enough that employers tend to require a CS degree and they'd have no shortage of applicants. Microsoft, one of the few (remaining) leading software companies, was famous for asking brain teasers like "Why are manhole covers round?" (I'm not sure whether they asked difficult programming questions -- IIRC Google started the trend later) The rush of people trying to enter the software industry only happened in the past couple years I think. The demand due to the tech boom drove up both the pay and the numbers of workers employed. Sure, it's probably even harder to enter the top tier companies, but I believe there are much more opportunities than 20 years ago.
  - watwut 5y ago
    What I remember from around that time, if you breathed and was confident, you could get the job. It did not required as much preparation as people put into it now.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lumost 5y ago

The problem is that this has become the primary and sole measure by which we're judging candidates. This leads to a pathological condition at many large tech companies where the outputs of an engineer do not matter for their career. Until you hit the Senior/Staff level, no one really gives a crap if you were editing yaml files, toiling on a legacy app, or building the highest scale app on the planet. It just matters that you can pass the standard tech interview. Now that people understand this, they are starting to optimize their careers at a company to simply do the minimum until they move externally for higher pay. You can bounce between reasonable tech companies doing literally nothing for higher and higher pay by simply switching once per year. I suspect that we'll see a steady increase in attention paid for deliverables and a dialing down of the leetcode arms race over the next 5 years. The signal to noise ratio of this interview type is falling.

riku_iki 5y ago
> Until you hit the Senior/Staff level, no one really gives a crap if you were editing yaml files, toiling on a legacy app, or building the highest scale app on the planet. It just matters that you can pass the standard tech interview. But big tech all have quarterly OKRs, performance plans and terminations for low performers, and managers/leads are interested to have strong contributors in team to deliver results, and let low performers to go..
- sedev 5y ago
  Please clarify as to whether you are speaking sarcastically or earnestly in this post.
- lumost 5y ago
  At big tech this takes time. In some companies a lot of time. It’s also typically done as a comparative process across engineers. If half the team is simply doing interview prep it’s unlikely management fires half the team.
- notacoward 5y ago
  > big tech all have quarterly OKRs, performance plans and terminations for low performers ...none of which information is shared with future employers. To do so is even considered a legally actionable violation of privacy in most cases.

RyEgswuCsn 5y ago

> where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company Critics of the tech interview are certainly not against the merit-based selection --- it's more like the 1.5x engineers fear that the standardised interviews are being abused to allow 1x engineers who are "just-in-for-the-money" to appear as 2x, making their lives harder. Meanwhile, 10x engineers probably are not bothered by this at all since 2x isn't enough of a threat.

YZF 5y ago
I think this bothers everyone in the industry. Even if you're a "10x" you're working 120% of your time on fairly specialized things. Now you have to put in extra work if you want to switch jobs. It creates friction. Maybe the 10x prepares for the interview in 2 days vs. the 1.5x taking 6 weeks but the 10x doesn't have 2 days and the 1.5x I guess has those 6 weeks ;) I wouldn't call the coding interview "merit-based" selection either. At least not until we show any sort of relationship between success at that style of interview and the stuff we think matters more. I don't think we're seeing any sort of boom of quality software that has followed the changes in the way we interview, if anything, the opposite. But you're exactly right in some sense. Back in the dot.com hay days we used to joke that if you had a pulse and could type you could land a tech job. It's sort of back to that. The industry needs a lot more good developers than what we have.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> prestigious tech jobs Tech jobs are well known for paying well (compared to the other jobs you can get if you’re not born into money) but have never been prestigious. Unless you’re considering the VP/CTO jobs that don’t involve algorithm solving and do involve being from the right Harvard fraternity.

ketzo 5y ago
This is true if you’re comparing exclusively within the tech field. The job title of “computer programmer” is extraordinarily prestigious compared to, say... barista, waiter, nurse, bus driver, police officer… Getting into “tech” is a very big deal compared to almost literally any other field that is not law/medicine.

neilv 5y ago

> how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people who aren’t necessarily born into situations that usher them straight into prestigious tech jobs. The underdog could get computer jobs before the current gatekeeping -- on enthusiasm, hard work, merit, and will. The gatekeeping started by favoring the affluent (suddenly, going into dotcoms made more sense than that Wall Street job), and now other people have to invest in playing catchup on bro rituals.

YZF 5y ago
I agree. Good people never had a problem getting a job. I got my first summer job writing code when I was in high school. My friend wrote commercial video games when in high school. Through history, if you were enthusiastic about writing software, and you were good at it, finding work was never a problem. It's always been finding those people that has been the problem. I would almost argue the opposite, that this process opens doors for people who are not good software developers to get good software jobs. Since you can relatively easily prep for a software interview but no amount of prepping makes you a really good developer. Whatever the coding interview process measures, it's not how good of a software engineer/developer you are.
b20000 5y ago
yeah, and that underdog now can no longer get a job on hard work and merit, because that is not what leetcode interviews reward. it also does not take into account any previous work done or any personal projects.

elvis10ten 5y ago

Level playing field? C’mon. A person using a premium resource most likely have higher quality material and sometimes access to a seasoned professional that can give personalized feedback. Who has more time to do leetcode? Who has a good network of peers to motivate them when they are not “feeling it”? Who is more likely to enjoy abstract puzzles/quizzes? A single mom in Philly or a wealthy Stanford grad? Would you also say take home projects are also a level playing field?

xenihn 5y ago
It's more level than literally everything else that pays comparatively. At least the single mom in Philly won't have the fact that she didn't go to Stanford completely invalidate her as a potential candidate when it comes to modern leetcode interviewing.
- elvis10ten 5y ago
  Ha! OP said it’s a level playing field, I’m not arguing if it’s a better system than what you/him compare it to. Just like how I would argue take-home/side/past projects are an amazing signal compared to credentials. I won’t dare to say it’s a level playing field.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > At least the single mom in Philly won't have the fact that she didn't go to Stanford completely invalidate her as a potential candidate And when will the single mom in Philly find the time to memorize as many (or more, after all, its a competitive market) default-interview-questions, as someone born into wealth whith lots of free time on their hands and the financial resources to pay someone specializing in prepping them for exactly these interviews? So, what did really change?
  - xenihn 5y ago
    I don't see how this invalidates my original point, can you expand on your argument?

watwut 5y ago

> current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people who aren’t necessarily born into situations that usher them straight into prestigious tech jobs. The self taught programmers were always the thing. If anything, current interview style is giving advantage to those from elite universities - it tests exactly those skills.

b20000 5y ago

opened doors? you must be nuts. all it has done, is made it easier to discriminate candidates, turn a highly specialized field into a commodity, and put more power in the hands of tech companies, especially FAANGs. it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. if people go to university and actually study and work hard to get a degree, it should be normal they don’t have to go through this bullshit.

chii 5y ago
> it has indirectly prevented knowledge workers from organizing. i don't see how any of the above indirectly causes prevention of organization of a union. If it required you to get a degree to get a tech job, far fewer people would be available. Far fewer people would be able to transition from low paid jobs to a higher paid job such as tech. Making a specialized, technical field into a commodity is actually a global gain - even if those who used to enjoy a highly paid position gets their advantage lost because of such commoditization. Either they specialize into something that is even more valuable, or be lost amongst the commodity. Imagine if, during the iron age, the blacksmiths prevented the commoditization of industrial production.
- b20000 5y ago
  just like the field of medicine or law owes you nothing, the tech industry owes you nothing. it does not need to solve your problems. it is annoying that people think it should. the reason that tech prep and tech programs and STEM are promoted, and kids are sold on “learn to code”, is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.
  - chii 5y ago
    > is to LOWER THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT. you say it like it's a bad thing. Lowering the cost of _anything_ is good for society overall. It makes this resource more affordable for all entities requiring such resources, and it increases total output. Doctors today costs too much, because there's a lobby group called the AMA that restricts entrants (rightly or wrongly). i would argue that it's better to have lower cost, because this service is valuable to people, and if the cost matches the value (or exceed the value), then some people will miss out on being able to utilize this resource.

gyulai 5y ago

> current style of tech interviews has opened doors for [...] people who aren’t [...] born [...] into prestigious tech jobs. I really take issue with this line of reasoning. The same thing was recently argued in relation to MIT going back to using SAT scores. The argument basically seems to be "Since no alternative to this is conceivable that isn't some form of racist/classist cronyism, this is actually the lesser evil". At some point in history, people probably said something like "Since no alternative to monarchy is conceivable that isn't some form of despotic warlordism, monarchy is actually pretty good". ...they just hadn't conceived of those alternatives yet. It sounds to me like simply a reflection of the political climate in the U.S. where there's a weird inversion of burden-of-proof whereby any decision making process is presumed a form of racist/classist cronyism unless proven otherwise. The more mechanized a decision making process is, the more amenable it is to this sort of proof. But I certainly don't want to live in the resulting dehumanized dystopia. Also, I'd question whether social reproduction is quantitatively a significant factor in selecting who tech jobs go to. The idea seems to be that engineer daddy gets son interested in engineering by doing science fair projects with him, sends him off to space camp, then pulls strings to get him into MIT and so forth. But, statistically, I'm expecting to have as many daughters as sons, and a daughter is statistically not going to be interested in tech. Even if it's a son, it's not clear whether he would have the personality traits and inclination. I wouldn't want to interfere with them either, as I'm not even sure that going into tech would be something I would want to do again if I could live my own life over. The latter is not true of wealth in general. I would always want my children to be wealthy, and they would always want to be wealthy, and handing over wealth is as easy as signing a piece of paper. These latter statements are oversimplifications, but they highlight how the analogy breaks down between social reproduction in relation to wealth in general and social reproduction in relation to having a prestigious tech job. -- Also, the question of whether tech jobs can be prestigious seems subjective to me, as there are a lot of negative stereotypes attached to tech.

onion2k 5y ago

Hiring at FAANGs isn't a matter of "pass the tech test and you win a job". There are lots of other parts to the hiring process. A recommendation from a person high-up in the company, or a Stanford degree, still carries weight. Leetcode is an additional barrier, that people with a privileged background can buy help to pass, and where having the resources to stop working to study full time is immensely useful. People who don't have wealthy parents or personal wealth can't do that. I believe Leetcode makes tech more exclusive, not less.

ozzythecat 5y ago
I’ll speak strictly to SDE roles at Amazon. Unless you’re recommended by a Senior VP, a recommendation or Stanford degree will not do much more than help you get an interview. A hiring manager can try to fight others on the interview loop and overrule a bar raiser, but they’re really putting themselves out there for you. Maybe they really fight for a candidate once or twice, but it’s not very common.
gnarcoregrizz 5y ago
For sure. I think it’s made the hiring market less liquid. I really did need to study 50+ leetcode questions to do well in an interview. I crashed and burned a few interviews and ended up resigning myself to the grind, and bang, I’d pass those early interviews no problem. It’s a unique tech adjacent skill that not everyone has time to practice. It certainly doesn’t mean you’re a bad engineer if you can’t leetcode. It’s a form of gatekeeping and hazing. It’s what you get when stem is hyped at every level of education. There are too many people gunning for tech. It attracts all the smart and ambitious students now. There is no programmer shortage.

usrbinbash 5y ago

> it has been fascinating to watch how the current style of tech interviews has opened doors for a lot of smart, motivated people And also closed the door for lots of smart, motivated people who are excellent engineers, but do badly in stressed up situations where they need to do something (coming up with an answer on the spot, usually w.o. being able to do any research) that the job they are being interviewed for rarely if ever actually demands of them. > to move past the situations where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_frying_pan_into_the_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_frying_pan_into_the...

nojito 5y ago
Nothing wrong with having a lower than 100% accuracy rate for hiring. The whole point of tech interviews are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills.
- usrbinbash 5y ago
  > are to prevent you from making a bad hire who embellishes their skills. Indeed. And exactly how do code puzzle interviews accomplish that? Because here is the gist of what happens, as described in the article: The similarities to the test prep industry are very interesting. Is an algorithm interview reflective of how an engineer works in their day-to-day job? Along those lines, what is the SAT really measuring? Whenever I standardize tests, at some point the parameters of my standards become known. It becomes possible to prep for the test instead of what I want to test for.
  - nojito 5y ago
    Which is a good thing because it ensures you at least don't hire someone who you should not have.
    - usrbinbash 5y ago
      How does it ensure that exactly, when the testing methodology evaluates something different from what I want evaluated?

bgro 5y ago

Tech interviews remind me of employers saying to forget everything you’ve learned, kiddo. Heh, we do REAL work here! If you want to work for us you better be able to complete this leetcode question! You’re not a real engineer if you can’t! Then the real work is an awfully designed mostly front end disaster. Nobody knows how anything works. But they passed the interview somehow. I don’t get the people who do leetcode for fun or who get hyped up about it as an interview process. I guess they made it in life by cramming for tests just to forget it all immediately after. Wasting time memorizing tedious things that have no value is especially awful and draining for me. It’s not fair some people can just do that if they spend a small amount of effort and try. It’s a monumental impossible task for me when I’m otherwise exceptional with software engineering. I’d rather climb a mountain, to put it in perspective. I’d rather actually learn the concepts used on tests and be able to adapt them into my learning, rather than have a history test where I fill in an endless amount of blanks with the exact day, month, and year is somehow relevant or useful for anything. Does anyone actually process those types of questions as actual comprehensible dates instead of memorized strings that are better suited to memorize with a jingle?

SauciestGNU 5y ago
I'm going through this right now after I promised myself for a long time that I wouldn't debase myself with this sort of interview process. The rewards are too much, I sold myself out, whatever. What I'm finding is that the leetcode isn't a memorization game, it reminds me more of my homework in grad school algorithms. Each of the problems is meant to tease out your practical understanding of an abstract concept. It certainly doesn't guarantee you'll be a good dev if you can pass leetcode type questions, and you're not necessarily a bad dev if you can't, but I can definitely see where performing well at leetcode is a strong signal about SWE fundamentals.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

> where people were trying to coast in on the reputation of their university or by getting an “internship” from their dad’s friend’s company. This absolutely still happens though. Those people will just get "fast tracked" through the process and allowed to skip steps. If there is even an interview at all. Nepotism is still alive and well even in software. Edit: Oh, or they will get hired as consultants / contractors at a high rate and get to add your company's name to their list of happy clients