5 ms·

> I'm positive I'd fail a FAANG interview w/o advance prep This is okay and to be frustrated at it, but it's important to recognize why it's happening. FAANGs

> I'm positive I'd fail a FAANG interview w/o advance prep This is okay and to be frustrated at it, but it's important to recognize why it's happening. FAANGs go through an incredible number of candidates with only a few slots (comparatively) and the point is to simply make the bar higher and higher. Just like a pragmatic engineering - you have a 'good enough' candidate set. For me, the problem is when smaller startups copy the format - expecting candidates to jump through all the same hoops. If a FAANG has 1:100 position to interview candidates ratio, a startup will be lucky to have 1:5 (it's incredibly expensive/time-consuming for a startup to interview). Running the same test likely means you're rejecting a lot of potentially good candidates who didn't want to go through a 'FAANG' interview.

b112 5y ago
FAANGs go through an incredible number of candidates with only a few slots (comparatively) and the point is to simply make the bar higher and higher. This doesn't fit the "we can't find candidates, so we need more H1B's" narrative. Supposedly, there are many open slots, unfilled, so purposefully failing people which can do the job, which meet the minimum requirements, should not be the outcome. Instead of raising te bar, as you say, due to candidates o'plenty.
- irjustin 5y ago
  > This doesn't fit the "we can't find candidates, so we need more H1B's" narrative. I disagree. In fact, this validates it. On the basis of a world-wide talent pool vs a domestic. If you know there are stronger candidates elsewhere then you absolutely want to test away the domestic candidates. Thinking about it from a hiring manager's perspective. You don't lower your standards just because a specific pool of candidates can't meet your criteria when you can widen the pool - as far as you are able. If the H1B candidates were tested on a 'easier/weaker' test the I would 100% agree with you, but I'm assuming things equal here. And, ignoring any thing related to domestic vs foreigner workforce, "people taking our jobs" debate.
  - Scarblac 5y ago
    The bar is higher than needed to fill the positions (several people in the thread say they work in senior positions at a FAANG and wouldn't pass the interview). So good enough candidates are being rejected, so they shouldn't need special visas for people from abroad that are intended for real labour shortages, it would seem. (but I'm not from the US so don't actually care)
    - therealdrag0 5y ago
      They wouldn’t pass the interview *without studying. And studying is expected for these interviews. That doesn’t mean the bar is to high. It just means the bar is an indirect metric not testing exact job experience/knowledge.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
This doesn't make sense. If any of the candidates they are refusing are capable of doing the daily work at a FANG but can't pass the interview, they're artificially constraining their supply of candidates and increasing the cost they need to pay for developers for absolutely no reasons. The type of work in a FANG is mostly not that dissimilar to other companies (the exception being teams working with machine learning, performance optimization, dealing with tricky scale). I understand hiring specialists for specialist jobs (and I still wouldn't test them on leetcode; ask domain specific questions). It's just ego driven over spending on developers.
- pyb 5y ago
  They artificially restricting the supply of viable candidates, but this gatekeeping happens whenever engineers want (sometimes subconciously) to limit the competition and protect their high wages.
- swiftcoder 5y ago
  > It's just ego driven over spending on developers. It's worth considering that engineering interviews are largely conducted by other engineers, and engineering hiring bars are largely set by senior engineering staff. They have a pretty vested interest in maintaining their own status and (relative) scarcity. Constantly raising the technical interview bar keeps engineers a supply-constrained resource...
- goodpoint 5y ago
  > they're artificially constraining their supply of candidates and increasing the cost they need to pay for developers for absolutely no reasons. On the contrary, rejecting a high number of candidates pushes market rates down.
  - BlargMcLarg 5y ago
    Explain please. There seems to be an assumption hidden here which might not hold true upon further investigation.

b112 5y ago

FAANGs go through an incredible number of candidates with only a few slots (comparatively) and the point is to simply make the bar higher and higher. This doesn't fit the "we can't find candidates, so we need more H1B's" narrative. Supposedly, there are many open slots, unfilled, so purposefully failing people which can do the job, which meet the minimum requirements, should not be the outcome. Instead of raising te bar, as you say, due to candidates o'plenty.

irjustin 5y ago
> This doesn't fit the "we can't find candidates, so we need more H1B's" narrative. I disagree. In fact, this validates it. On the basis of a world-wide talent pool vs a domestic. If you know there are stronger candidates elsewhere then you absolutely want to test away the domestic candidates. Thinking about it from a hiring manager's perspective. You don't lower your standards just because a specific pool of candidates can't meet your criteria when you can widen the pool - as far as you are able. If the H1B candidates were tested on a 'easier/weaker' test the I would 100% agree with you, but I'm assuming things equal here. And, ignoring any thing related to domestic vs foreigner workforce, "people taking our jobs" debate.
- Scarblac 5y ago
  The bar is higher than needed to fill the positions (several people in the thread say they work in senior positions at a FAANG and wouldn't pass the interview). So good enough candidates are being rejected, so they shouldn't need special visas for people from abroad that are intended for real labour shortages, it would seem. (but I'm not from the US so don't actually care)
  - therealdrag0 5y ago
    They wouldn’t pass the interview *without studying. And studying is expected for these interviews. That doesn’t mean the bar is to high. It just means the bar is an indirect metric not testing exact job experience/knowledge.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

This doesn't make sense. If any of the candidates they are refusing are capable of doing the daily work at a FANG but can't pass the interview, they're artificially constraining their supply of candidates and increasing the cost they need to pay for developers for absolutely no reasons. The type of work in a FANG is mostly not that dissimilar to other companies (the exception being teams working with machine learning, performance optimization, dealing with tricky scale). I understand hiring specialists for specialist jobs (and I still wouldn't test them on leetcode; ask domain specific questions). It's just ego driven over spending on developers.

pyb 5y ago
They artificially restricting the supply of viable candidates, but this gatekeeping happens whenever engineers want (sometimes subconciously) to limit the competition and protect their high wages.
swiftcoder 5y ago
> It's just ego driven over spending on developers. It's worth considering that engineering interviews are largely conducted by other engineers, and engineering hiring bars are largely set by senior engineering staff. They have a pretty vested interest in maintaining their own status and (relative) scarcity. Constantly raising the technical interview bar keeps engineers a supply-constrained resource...
goodpoint 5y ago
> they're artificially constraining their supply of candidates and increasing the cost they need to pay for developers for absolutely no reasons. On the contrary, rejecting a high number of candidates pushes market rates down.
- BlargMcLarg 5y ago
  Explain please. There seems to be an assumption hidden here which might not hold true upon further investigation.