4 ms·

> Silicon Valley and its satellites seem to disproportionately favor code interviews compared to the rest of the US market, for some ungodly reason. I work at

by vdnkh 4y ago

> Silicon Valley and its satellites seem to disproportionately favor code interviews compared to the rest of the US market, for some ungodly reason. I work at a well known SV tech company with about 3k ppl and we got over 50,000 job applications last year. Code interviews suck, but they're a scalable way to assess skill with minimal bias.

postalrat 4y ago
There could be an argument made that most code interviews have a bias twords younger less experienced developers. They are the ones that take the time and study these questions. Years of experience probably won't help since the questions don't represent day to day problems most developers are solving.
- mmcru 4y ago
  I interview at FAANG and we do take this into account by holding pretty much anyone over ~2 years of experience to the same standard with respect to leetcode questions. A fresh grad is expect to be able to solve ~medium problems. Someone with ~2 years of experience is expected to be able to solve ~hard problems. Someone with 10 or 20 years of experience is still only expected to be able to solve ~hard problems. The standards for a more experienced candidate are of course higher for other attributes: Leadership skills, communication skills, etc.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    Would you suggest someone with 10-20 years of experience to practice and learn how to solve leetcode problems? Or just expect them to be able to solve them without any prior exposure? And if you would suggest they learn them what would that person be gaining that they lacked before?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
walleeee 4y ago
the fact that SV companies are getting 50,000 applicants while other more or less critical sectors struggle to field any talent at all points to a (the?) deeper problem at the root of the leetcode fiasco
bovermyer 4y ago
Let's unpack that for a second. "Skill" is probably one of the least valuable metrics of a given hire's performance over time for an employer. Yes, being able to effectively select for the people most likely to develop a competitive non-extant algorithm is an important metric for certain employers that skill tests will assist with. However, it's as niche to general society as academic studies are. This is not to say that it's unworthy of practice or attention. In some cases, it's absolutely justified. What I'm advocating for, however, is skewed towards the broad middle of employment cases - people who are competent, able to solve most day-to-day problems, and not adverse to new practices. In most cases, people aren't looking to advance the knowledge of a particular field of study. They're just looking to solve problems for their day job while earning appropriate compensation. The employer gets a satisfactory advancement of their capabilities, and the employee gets to enjoy a quality of life they're used to. The "broad middle" is much messier, but also easier to filter for. As a hiring manager, I would look for people that are A) not obvious assholes, and B) likely to improve my team's performance in some measurable way. In other words... Company X, which lives and dies by having the absolute latest technology available to humanity, may well need to use code interviews to even establish a baseline performance metric. Company Y, which is just interested in appreciably improving its market share versus a wide cohort, is probably better served by "softer" hiring metrics.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  One possible a consideration would be that "softer" hiring metrics breed mediocrity and complacency in the long run. Should the company in question to pivot into a more, let's say, intellectually rigorous direction, how should they handle the predicament they've put themselves in without the end result being bankruptcy, mass layoffs, bad PR, or some combination of the three?

by vdnkh 4y ago

postalrat 4y ago

There could be an argument made that most code interviews have a bias twords younger less experienced developers. They are the ones that take the time and study these questions. Years of experience probably won't help since the questions don't represent day to day problems most developers are solving.

mmcru 4y ago
I interview at FAANG and we do take this into account by holding pretty much anyone over ~2 years of experience to the same standard with respect to leetcode questions. A fresh grad is expect to be able to solve ~medium problems. Someone with ~2 years of experience is expected to be able to solve ~hard problems. Someone with 10 or 20 years of experience is still only expected to be able to solve ~hard problems. The standards for a more experienced candidate are of course higher for other attributes: Leadership skills, communication skills, etc.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Would you suggest someone with 10-20 years of experience to practice and learn how to solve leetcode problems? Or just expect them to be able to solve them without any prior exposure? And if you would suggest they learn them what would that person be gaining that they lacked before?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

walleeee 4y ago

the fact that SV companies are getting 50,000 applicants while other more or less critical sectors struggle to field any talent at all points to a (the?) deeper problem at the root of the leetcode fiasco

bovermyer 4y ago

Let's unpack that for a second. "Skill" is probably one of the least valuable metrics of a given hire's performance over time for an employer. Yes, being able to effectively select for the people most likely to develop a competitive non-extant algorithm is an important metric for certain employers that skill tests will assist with. However, it's as niche to general society as academic studies are. This is not to say that it's unworthy of practice or attention. In some cases, it's absolutely justified. What I'm advocating for, however, is skewed towards the broad middle of employment cases - people who are competent, able to solve most day-to-day problems, and not adverse to new practices. In most cases, people aren't looking to advance the knowledge of a particular field of study. They're just looking to solve problems for their day job while earning appropriate compensation. The employer gets a satisfactory advancement of their capabilities, and the employee gets to enjoy a quality of life they're used to. The "broad middle" is much messier, but also easier to filter for. As a hiring manager, I would look for people that are A) not obvious assholes, and B) likely to improve my team's performance in some measurable way. In other words... Company X, which lives and dies by having the absolute latest technology available to humanity, may well need to use code interviews to even establish a baseline performance metric. Company Y, which is just interested in appreciably improving its market share versus a wide cohort, is probably better served by "softer" hiring metrics.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
One possible a consideration would be that "softer" hiring metrics breed mediocrity and complacency in the long run. Should the company in question to pivot into a more, let's say, intellectually rigorous direction, how should they handle the predicament they've put themselves in without the end result being bankruptcy, mass layoffs, bad PR, or some combination of the three?