6 ms·

He cheated more on writing a clickbait title than actually "cheating" on the interview. This is the same thing as when a kid in class thought studying was a way

He cheated more on writing a clickbait title than actually "cheating" on the interview. This is the same thing as when a kid in class thought studying was a way to cheat.

benjaminwootton 4y ago
This guy is one of those LinkedIn thought leader types prone to oversharing for attention.
- rsweeney21 4y ago
  lol thanks! I actually hate the attention, in part because of comments like this one. Though this one was comparatively mild. I do it to generate sales leads for my startup. We're bootstrapped so being able to generate leads without any ad spend or outbound sales means we don't have to raise money to grow. I used to write blog posts but they take so much longer. Hence no new posts on the blog since 2019. Now I focus on LinkedIn. A single viral post on LinkedIn can get 2M-5M views on average. It will generate $1M-$2M in potential business for us. This way I can spend 50% of my time writing code, 45% doing CEO stuff, and 5% doing marketing.
- ignoramous 4y ago
  That's harsh because TFA does mention that they feel outright uncomfortable (even after 18 years!) how big a role luck played in them clearing that fizzbuzz interview question: > I've struggled with this a lot over the years, but I finally decided to share my story. I don’t think I would have made it past the first round of interviews at Microsoft if I hadn’t gotten so lucky. So pretty much, my entire career is built on one amazing stroke of luck. ...which explains why they felt like they "cheated".
  - buran77 4y ago
    Out of pretty much all the people I know, I can't think of any successful career not pivoting on one such fateful moment of "luck". One lucky question/answer, one fortunate encounter, one near miss. Of course we'll never know how the road not taken looks like. Any moment could actually be a pivotal one but most are very unassuming and only the memorable ones stick with us, making them feel more important. Also, as someone who's been tested with this kind of questions (in the math and physics fields at least), I realized many times you aren't evaluated for knowing the answer but for how you go about trying to find it even if you fail. This particular question is close to my heart as I was tested with it as a pupil in school. The teacher wrote this on the blackboard and asked me to come over and solve it (not having any prior knowledge). After a bit of fidgeting with the chalk I stared writing on consecutive lines 1, 1+1, 1+1+1 and after a few lines it dawned on me it looks like the "lower" half of a square of side n as cut by its diagonal. So I proudly concluded that the sum is n^2/2. Which was of course wrong, I forgot to add an n/2 to that since the "diagonal" is shifted right a bit. Still got top mark and maybe it was one of those moments that set me on a path. This went on through high-school, university, post graduate studies, and early career. It was only when I was knee-deep in real work that people started to care less about how I think and more about just the end result. Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer.
    - DeathArrow 4y ago
      Gauss solved the same problem in a very similar fashion when he was a kid.
      - tdumitrescu 4y ago
        I remember this too, from our 4th-grade "G&T" math teacher telling us the story. Although I use the formula so rarely that I don't keep it memorized, whenever it does come up, I think back to that day in class and that moves the gears enough that I can derive it empirically pretty quickly from small-number examples and the knowledge that it involves two consecutive numbers.
    - belter 4y ago
      > Out of pretty much all the people I know, I can't think of any successful career not pivoting on one such fateful moment of "luck". One lucky question/answer, one fortunate encounter, one near miss. You are so correct (at proper timestamp): https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?t=211 https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?t=211
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      Not disagreeing with your points. > Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer. TFA notes that because of lack of interview prep material in 2004, even when the author knew the question before-hand, it took them days to arrive at an optimal answer. And then it dawned on them that everyone else at the job fair, who may be seeing a question for the first time, only had 15 mins in a pressure-cooker situation to solve it. TFA also notes that the author intentionally misled the interviewer as if they were solving the puzzle then and there: I casually explained how I could simply use a mathematical formula to calculate the sum of 1 to n (like, who doesn’t know the sum(1 to n) formula?) and compare that to the sum of the integers in the array. I slowly wrote out the solution I had come up with over days of thinking about the problem, being sure to pause periodically as if I was figuring it out for the first time. I talked through my thinking and made sure I had all the proper error checking in place. I double and triple checked my syntax. My handwritten code was perfect.
- codingdave 4y ago
  I believe that the attention he is seeking is simply marketing. Almost all of his content revolves around hiring and working in tech, which is the core focus of his business. The overall trend is, "I've seen the bad, and built something better, so check us out." I don't have a problem with people marketing themselves on LinkedIn - it that not the entire purpose of the site?
thepangolino 4y ago
Sadly this didn't work for Volkswagen when they "studied" for their emission tests.
omegalulw 4y ago
Its not cheating but it's absolutely unethical. OP is right that they should have disclosed that they had seen the problem before. It only is that the right thing to do but also good interviewers can tell when you genuinely thought about a problem vs just regurgitated the solution.
- beachy 4y ago
  Whatever. It's dog eat dog, good on OP.
- belter 4y ago
  As unethical as the hundreds of interviewers who pretend to believe that the candidate in front of them, just somehow managed to find within minutes the solution to some programming puzzle, and not through hundreds of hours of mentoring and self-practice. I would propose to change coding interviews to the following scheme: Step 1: Interviewer ask a coding question. If candidate is able to answer correctly then move to Step 2 Step 2: Candidate asks a coding question from Interviewer. If Interviewer answers correctly go back to Step 1. If Interviewer is not able to answer correctly in 60 min, and Candidate is able to explain solution and implementation, move to Step 3 Step 3: Interview is over and Candidate automatically qualifies for next hiring phase.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    I agree that interviewers asking stupidly hard questions that they wouldn't be able to figure out in an interview is a problem, but I don't see how your solution would remotely work. How would you ensure the questions are equally difficult?
    - belter 4y ago
      If the candidate can manage the question the Interviewer should be able also. After all he/she was already hired. If a company decides to approach hiring with the naturally confrontational approach of, "let me find out in 60 minutes if you are smart enough to work here", I don't see why it should stop there. After all recruiters always mention, it is good for you if you are also inquisitive, show interest in the company and ask questions :-)) Why can't a candidate also check if their future managers and the company are worthwhile to work there? It is always mentioned that a candidate is a much interviewing the company as the company is interviewing them... Now...how many interviewers are suddenly uncomfortable? ;-)
muststopmyths 4y ago
Exactly. Since he went through the much tougher full interview loop just fine apparently. The bar for that filter test is probably not super high
xmcqdpt2 4y ago
Not only is it clickbait, the author is founder and CEO of a technical recruiting company. Clearly the article is written to generate leads for Facet. This is basically just astroturfing. The author should have opened with a conflict of interest statement at the very top. Also, OP should have included (2019) in the title. It's kind of an old piece.

He cheated more on writing a clickbait title than actually "cheating" on the interview. This is the same thing as when a kid in class thought studying was a way to cheat.

benjaminwootton 4y ago

This guy is one of those LinkedIn thought leader types prone to oversharing for attention.

rsweeney21 4y ago
lol thanks! I actually hate the attention, in part because of comments like this one. Though this one was comparatively mild. I do it to generate sales leads for my startup. We're bootstrapped so being able to generate leads without any ad spend or outbound sales means we don't have to raise money to grow. I used to write blog posts but they take so much longer. Hence no new posts on the blog since 2019. Now I focus on LinkedIn. A single viral post on LinkedIn can get 2M-5M views on average. It will generate $1M-$2M in potential business for us. This way I can spend 50% of my time writing code, 45% doing CEO stuff, and 5% doing marketing.
ignoramous 4y ago
That's harsh because TFA does mention that they feel outright uncomfortable (even after 18 years!) how big a role luck played in them clearing that fizzbuzz interview question: > I've struggled with this a lot over the years, but I finally decided to share my story. I don’t think I would have made it past the first round of interviews at Microsoft if I hadn’t gotten so lucky. So pretty much, my entire career is built on one amazing stroke of luck. ...which explains why they felt like they "cheated".
- buran77 4y ago
  Out of pretty much all the people I know, I can't think of any successful career not pivoting on one such fateful moment of "luck". One lucky question/answer, one fortunate encounter, one near miss. Of course we'll never know how the road not taken looks like. Any moment could actually be a pivotal one but most are very unassuming and only the memorable ones stick with us, making them feel more important. Also, as someone who's been tested with this kind of questions (in the math and physics fields at least), I realized many times you aren't evaluated for knowing the answer but for how you go about trying to find it even if you fail. This particular question is close to my heart as I was tested with it as a pupil in school. The teacher wrote this on the blackboard and asked me to come over and solve it (not having any prior knowledge). After a bit of fidgeting with the chalk I stared writing on consecutive lines 1, 1+1, 1+1+1 and after a few lines it dawned on me it looks like the "lower" half of a square of side n as cut by its diagonal. So I proudly concluded that the sum is n^2/2. Which was of course wrong, I forgot to add an n/2 to that since the "diagonal" is shifted right a bit. Still got top mark and maybe it was one of those moments that set me on a path. This went on through high-school, university, post graduate studies, and early career. It was only when I was knee-deep in real work that people started to care less about how I think and more about just the end result. Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer.
  - DeathArrow 4y ago
    Gauss solved the same problem in a very similar fashion when he was a kid.
    - tdumitrescu 4y ago
      I remember this too, from our 4th-grade "G&T" math teacher telling us the story. Although I use the formula so rarely that I don't keep it memorized, whenever it does come up, I think back to that day in class and that moves the gears enough that I can derive it empirically pretty quickly from small-number examples and the knowledge that it involves two consecutive numbers.
  - belter 4y ago
    > Out of pretty much all the people I know, I can't think of any successful career not pivoting on one such fateful moment of "luck". One lucky question/answer, one fortunate encounter, one near miss. You are so correct (at proper timestamp): https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?t=211 https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?t=211
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    Not disagreeing with your points. > Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer. TFA notes that because of lack of interview prep material in 2004, even when the author knew the question before-hand, it took them days to arrive at an optimal answer. And then it dawned on them that everyone else at the job fair, who may be seeing a question for the first time, only had 15 mins in a pressure-cooker situation to solve it. TFA also notes that the author intentionally misled the interviewer as if they were solving the puzzle then and there: I casually explained how I could simply use a mathematical formula to calculate the sum of 1 to n (like, who doesn’t know the sum(1 to n) formula?) and compare that to the sum of the integers in the array. I slowly wrote out the solution I had come up with over days of thinking about the problem, being sure to pause periodically as if I was figuring it out for the first time. I talked through my thinking and made sure I had all the proper error checking in place. I double and triple checked my syntax. My handwritten code was perfect.
codingdave 4y ago
I believe that the attention he is seeking is simply marketing. Almost all of his content revolves around hiring and working in tech, which is the core focus of his business. The overall trend is, "I've seen the bad, and built something better, so check us out." I don't have a problem with people marketing themselves on LinkedIn - it that not the entire purpose of the site?

thepangolino 4y ago

Sadly this didn't work for Volkswagen when they "studied" for their emission tests.

omegalulw 4y ago

Its not cheating but it's absolutely unethical. OP is right that they should have disclosed that they had seen the problem before. It only is that the right thing to do but also good interviewers can tell when you genuinely thought about a problem vs just regurgitated the solution.

beachy 4y ago
Whatever. It's dog eat dog, good on OP.
belter 4y ago
As unethical as the hundreds of interviewers who pretend to believe that the candidate in front of them, just somehow managed to find within minutes the solution to some programming puzzle, and not through hundreds of hours of mentoring and self-practice. I would propose to change coding interviews to the following scheme: Step 1: Interviewer ask a coding question. If candidate is able to answer correctly then move to Step 2 Step 2: Candidate asks a coding question from Interviewer. If Interviewer answers correctly go back to Step 1. If Interviewer is not able to answer correctly in 60 min, and Candidate is able to explain solution and implementation, move to Step 3 Step 3: Interview is over and Candidate automatically qualifies for next hiring phase.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  I agree that interviewers asking stupidly hard questions that they wouldn't be able to figure out in an interview is a problem, but I don't see how your solution would remotely work. How would you ensure the questions are equally difficult?
  - belter 4y ago
    If the candidate can manage the question the Interviewer should be able also. After all he/she was already hired. If a company decides to approach hiring with the naturally confrontational approach of, "let me find out in 60 minutes if you are smart enough to work here", I don't see why it should stop there. After all recruiters always mention, it is good for you if you are also inquisitive, show interest in the company and ask questions :-)) Why can't a candidate also check if their future managers and the company are worthwhile to work there? It is always mentioned that a candidate is a much interviewing the company as the company is interviewing them... Now...how many interviewers are suddenly uncomfortable? ;-)

muststopmyths 4y ago

Exactly. Since he went through the much tougher full interview loop just fine apparently. The bar for that filter test is probably not super high

xmcqdpt2 4y ago

Not only is it clickbait, the author is founder and CEO of a technical recruiting company. Clearly the article is written to generate leads for Facet. This is basically just astroturfing. The author should have opened with a conflict of interest statement at the very top. Also, OP should have included (2019) in the title. It's kind of an old piece.