5 ms·

I also need "time and space to think" (and so would most people), but given the choice between someone who needs time and space to think, and someone who doesn'

I also need "time and space to think" (and so would most people), but given the choice between someone who needs time and space to think, and someone who doesn't (either works well under extreme pressure or is just that self-confident), who would you choose? Sure interviews are unfair (there are many problems like the one described in TFA, as well as people who just practice the skill), but are there better options?

abirch 4y ago
Contract to hire. My best jobs came this way, but I understand it's not for everyone.
- johnsanders 4y ago
  Yep. No way on earth I would have gotten the job I have if I'd been in the recruiting cattle call.
joeman1000 4y ago
I’d pick the person who can prove themselves capable in their own way. Their tyrannical measure of capability simply rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I should not be pushed aside because I’ve got anxiety issues stopping me from jumping through their fucking little hoop.
- pc86 4y ago
devoutsalsa 4y ago
You should assume that someone who impresses you without needing time to think likely knew the answer already.
sarchertech 4y ago
> but given the choice between someone who needs time and space to think, and someone who doesn't. I’ve worked with people who needed time to think, but at the end of that time came up with better solutions than the people who were quicker. High pressure leetcode tests select for a specific type of thinker who may or may not be good at solving the problems you’re actually hiring them for. > but are there better options I’ve had success pair programming together on a problem you both don’t know the immediate answer to. I’ve also had success with allowing candidates to choose take home assignments. I’ve also had success doing what every other other industry does: trust their resume, ask them to talk me through projects, and talk to references. Then fire them quickly if it turns out they are one of those dreaded fake programmers that everyone is worried about.
- matwood 4y ago
  Thing is, you can get the 'fake' programmer even with algorithm tests since they are only looking through a keyhole at someones overall employability. For many (most?) jobs work ethic, attitude, and don't be an asshole are all more important after a minimum programming bar is met. Admittedly I've never had to hire at Google/MS scale, but my best luck hiring has been like you said - talk to people and be up front about expectations and that we fire if needed.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  > I’ve had success pair programming together on a problem you both don’t know the immediate answer to. This is not different to what is being described in TFA -- you do discuss with the interview in order to reach the solution, and as many have said in these comments already, if you just lash out the solution without revealing your thinking process, many interviewers get disappointed and may throw you another problem. They are not simply asking you for your leetcode ranking (or whatever the name of the-site-of-this-week for this type of problems). That may actually be much more fair, but it is a much worse experience. > I’ve also had success with allowing candidates to choose take home assignments. I was giving take at home assignments until one candidate basically scolded me for wasting his time with these. I think he actually had a point -- I would probably refuse a take at home assignment myself -- and I have since stopped giving them (we hired that guy and he became a friend of mine). They are also not very fair -- they are skewed towards people with more free time at home -- and very prone to cheating, so you have do the whiteboard discussion afterwards. Overall I find this one of the worst experiences. > I’ve also had success doing what every other other industry does: trust their resume, ask them to talk me through projects, and talk to references. In the same way that the whiteboard interview is the only practical method I know for junior positions, at some level of seniority this becomes the only practical way to hire people. But like the whiteboard interviews, this is practically the opposite of fairness. Like in every other industry indeed.
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    >This is not different to what is being described in TFA -- you do discuss with the interview in order to reach the solution It's very different. If the interviewer already knows the answer and is careful not to give it away, it creates an artificially adversarial process that is completely divorced from the reality of the job. Working together to solve a common problem is a much more accurate work sample test. >if you just lash out the solution without revealing your thinking process, many interviewers get disappointed and may throw you another problem. Knowing the answer upfront makes it much easier to explain your thought process in a way that makes you look smart. Many (most?) companies doing leetcode interviews are more interested in you correctly solving x number of medium-hard problems than they are in hearing how you think. >They are also not very fair -- they are skewed towards people with more free time at home That's why I've given them as one alternative among several. >so you have do the whiteboard discussion afterwards. You can talk to them about the problem and ask them to explain their decisions. Also if someone cheats and the result is that you hire a fake programmer, fire them. >this is practically the opposite of fairness Leetcode interviews aren't more "fair" they just test a different skill than other types of interviews. The hope is that the skill they test is more correlated with job performance than other types of interviews. I don't think that's true.
lapcat 4y ago
I would choose the thoughtful person instead of the overconfident person 100% of the time.

abirch 4y ago

Contract to hire. My best jobs came this way, but I understand it's not for everyone.

johnsanders 4y ago
Yep. No way on earth I would have gotten the job I have if I'd been in the recruiting cattle call.

joeman1000 4y ago

I’d pick the person who can prove themselves capable in their own way. Their tyrannical measure of capability simply rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I should not be pushed aside because I’ve got anxiety issues stopping me from jumping through their fucking little hoop.

pc86 4y ago

devoutsalsa 4y ago

You should assume that someone who impresses you without needing time to think likely knew the answer already.

sarchertech 4y ago

> but given the choice between someone who needs time and space to think, and someone who doesn't. I’ve worked with people who needed time to think, but at the end of that time came up with better solutions than the people who were quicker. High pressure leetcode tests select for a specific type of thinker who may or may not be good at solving the problems you’re actually hiring them for. > but are there better options I’ve had success pair programming together on a problem you both don’t know the immediate answer to. I’ve also had success with allowing candidates to choose take home assignments. I’ve also had success doing what every other other industry does: trust their resume, ask them to talk me through projects, and talk to references. Then fire them quickly if it turns out they are one of those dreaded fake programmers that everyone is worried about.

matwood 4y ago
Thing is, you can get the 'fake' programmer even with algorithm tests since they are only looking through a keyhole at someones overall employability. For many (most?) jobs work ethic, attitude, and don't be an asshole are all more important after a minimum programming bar is met. Admittedly I've never had to hire at Google/MS scale, but my best luck hiring has been like you said - talk to people and be up front about expectations and that we fire if needed.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> I’ve had success pair programming together on a problem you both don’t know the immediate answer to. This is not different to what is being described in TFA -- you do discuss with the interview in order to reach the solution, and as many have said in these comments already, if you just lash out the solution without revealing your thinking process, many interviewers get disappointed and may throw you another problem. They are not simply asking you for your leetcode ranking (or whatever the name of the-site-of-this-week for this type of problems). That may actually be much more fair, but it is a much worse experience. > I’ve also had success with allowing candidates to choose take home assignments. I was giving take at home assignments until one candidate basically scolded me for wasting his time with these. I think he actually had a point -- I would probably refuse a take at home assignment myself -- and I have since stopped giving them (we hired that guy and he became a friend of mine). They are also not very fair -- they are skewed towards people with more free time at home -- and very prone to cheating, so you have do the whiteboard discussion afterwards. Overall I find this one of the worst experiences. > I’ve also had success doing what every other other industry does: trust their resume, ask them to talk me through projects, and talk to references. In the same way that the whiteboard interview is the only practical method I know for junior positions, at some level of seniority this becomes the only practical way to hire people. But like the whiteboard interviews, this is practically the opposite of fairness. Like in every other industry indeed.
- sarchertech 4y ago
  >This is not different to what is being described in TFA -- you do discuss with the interview in order to reach the solution It's very different. If the interviewer already knows the answer and is careful not to give it away, it creates an artificially adversarial process that is completely divorced from the reality of the job. Working together to solve a common problem is a much more accurate work sample test. >if you just lash out the solution without revealing your thinking process, many interviewers get disappointed and may throw you another problem. Knowing the answer upfront makes it much easier to explain your thought process in a way that makes you look smart. Many (most?) companies doing leetcode interviews are more interested in you correctly solving x number of medium-hard problems than they are in hearing how you think. >They are also not very fair -- they are skewed towards people with more free time at home That's why I've given them as one alternative among several. >so you have do the whiteboard discussion afterwards. You can talk to them about the problem and ask them to explain their decisions. Also if someone cheats and the result is that you hire a fake programmer, fire them. >this is practically the opposite of fairness Leetcode interviews aren't more "fair" they just test a different skill than other types of interviews. The hope is that the skill they test is more correlated with job performance than other types of interviews. I don't think that's true.

lapcat 4y ago

I would choose the thoughtful person instead of the overconfident person 100% of the time.