4 ms·

These articles always seem to have an underlying assumption that really great people are being denied access to jobs because they can't get through these interv

These articles always seem to have an underlying assumption that really great people are being denied access to jobs because they can't get through these interviews but it is implying that the people who do get through these are not also great but are less hassle, easier to measure their ability and so what if they have swatted up on LeetCode to help their application? That means they are driven, that they have learned stuff on the way and are more likely to get something right the first time. I have been on the receiving end of applying to an agency and being told I didn't make the grade technically. I was disappointed because I know I am a good engineer but I didn't expect them to magically know this. I can also see how my approach to the technical tests might have made me look less than what they were looking for, which is fine. I am also not sure of any good alternatives because someone will always object to any alternative which they cannot achieve for some reason. A "take home" project is good for real life work but some people cannot (or will not) invest the time even if they are paid for it; discussions can be great for helping nervous people but that is not how work usually is, there are challenges, pressures etc. and the able people object that it is not fair that people are getting in too easily.

nicoburns 4y ago
A realistic problem similar to what they’ll be expected to d in the job followed by a discussion to ensure they actually understand it makes much more sense than leetcode. Ideally with time for them to complete some of it independently with full access to the internet, an editor, etc.
sdrothrock 4y ago
> I am also not sure of any good alternatives because someone will always object to any alternative which they cannot achieve for some reason. When I was on the market, a couple of companies actually gave me a variety of options, which I appreciated. I don't want to spend hours on a take-home and I also don't want to do leetcode, but an open question/answer plus some code review and live debugging was an acceptable combination for me. Providing the options definitely has the potential to take up developer time, but I think the tradeoffs are worthwhile for both the interviewee and the hiring team.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Whenever they ask me to do a take-home I make a mention that I have about 150k lines of code on GitHub; this is usually ignored. Now, I somewhat understand why larger companies just "follow procedure, even if it doesn't strictly makes much sense" for various reasons, but what baffles me is that even a lot of smaller companies do this; which seems odd since a lot of places I interviewed at are kinda desperate for developers, and often can't match the salaries of larger companies either. The exception is my current position (only started last week): "oh yeah, we looked at your GitHub already and it's actually similar to the take-home anyway, so little point in that". Instead, they prepared an "alternative" interview where they posed some scenarios with "what would you do? How would you handle this?", which was intended to test both some technical skills, but also social/attitude things. I wrote down some answers, which took me about 30 minutes, and then we discussed them, taking a further 30-45 minutes. The questions were a bit clunky because they were looking for someone ASAP and there was only 2 days between the first and second interview, but I felt that was a much better approach for the company as well, because they got a lot more information this way: they could already verify basic coding skills themselves, and this way they got a new chunk of information they wouldn't have had otherwise.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    >but what baffles me is that even a lot of smaller companies do this You named the exact problem with the industry. No one is going to complain if FAANG does this with top tier, life changing salaries. No one will object to learning and memorizing DS&A at a job where DS&A is used heavily. What people are upset about is your average no-name company hiring individuals based on things they won't use during the job, of which the knowledge is still incredibly varied[0], and they still complain about not being able to find anyone and play the "woe is me" card. [0]: Dare I say it, DS&A is such a big topic not everyone learns the same things. Thinking in terms of a tree is different from thinking in terms of a linked list, graph, tree, heap, stack, queue, you name it. Most LC medium/hard require time you won't get, information you might not have. This knowledge isn't as universal among skilled graduates as people like to believe. And we all know the moment candidates are able to just memorize questions about linked lists, hiring will jump to the next topic.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
The alternative is to push companies to pay for long interviews, be realistic with their requirements (stop asking LC for simple CRUD work), have some faith in schooling, start carrying some risks again, and use the probationary period for what it's designed. What's happening is companies are putting the burden of the risk on candidates more and more. Because they can. If candidates would put their foot down and stop accepting this, most of these shenanigans would stop. The junior market shows what happens when people are desperate for jobs and willing to bend over for any whim corporate has that might help their hiring process (even when most of it is completely unproven).
- rethab 4y ago
  > use the probationary period for what it's designed This is probably fine in an environment where the candidate has lots of other options, but think about this scenario: a person applying to multiple companies, possibly rejecting some offers, possibly relocating or otherwise changing their life, accept that one offer, and then be let go in their first weeks. Changing jobs can be emotionally difficult and being let go even more. If you have to restart your job search, because you were let go during the probation period, all the other roles you have applied to might have been filled. On top of this, contrary to when you were looking for a job last time, now you're actually unemployed and potentially under pressure to find something new. So, in essence I don't think this is good for candidates.
  - BlargMcLarg 4y ago
    You obviously can't take the above in a vacuum and think it's fine. You could say the same for the advice of "give people work which resembles what the company does" leading to a situation akin to having interns doing minimum wage work for free, putting pressure on others as a result. But as things stand, nothing is preventing companies from doing the above anyway. If they think you're a bad fit, they will use the probationary period to cut ties with you. This is perfectly viable today. Your example assumes current filtering methods do in fact increase the ratio of true : false positives, and taking some of them out would decrease that ratio. This is not something that has been proven, and I'd even argue it's something that can't be reasonably proven within the next few years. This is even worse when considering a few interview rounds can only filter for the most obvious dummies, but can't decisively tell you the performance of that individual a few weeks down the line. What your example does show is how much power employers have over employees. It just isn't healthy for individuals to have to carry this amount of risk while corporates continue to reap the benefits.

nicoburns 4y ago

A realistic problem similar to what they’ll be expected to d in the job followed by a discussion to ensure they actually understand it makes much more sense than leetcode. Ideally with time for them to complete some of it independently with full access to the internet, an editor, etc.

sdrothrock 4y ago

> I am also not sure of any good alternatives because someone will always object to any alternative which they cannot achieve for some reason. When I was on the market, a couple of companies actually gave me a variety of options, which I appreciated. I don't want to spend hours on a take-home and I also don't want to do leetcode, but an open question/answer plus some code review and live debugging was an acceptable combination for me. Providing the options definitely has the potential to take up developer time, but I think the tradeoffs are worthwhile for both the interviewee and the hiring team.

Beltalowda 4y ago
Whenever they ask me to do a take-home I make a mention that I have about 150k lines of code on GitHub; this is usually ignored. Now, I somewhat understand why larger companies just "follow procedure, even if it doesn't strictly makes much sense" for various reasons, but what baffles me is that even a lot of smaller companies do this; which seems odd since a lot of places I interviewed at are kinda desperate for developers, and often can't match the salaries of larger companies either. The exception is my current position (only started last week): "oh yeah, we looked at your GitHub already and it's actually similar to the take-home anyway, so little point in that". Instead, they prepared an "alternative" interview where they posed some scenarios with "what would you do? How would you handle this?", which was intended to test both some technical skills, but also social/attitude things. I wrote down some answers, which took me about 30 minutes, and then we discussed them, taking a further 30-45 minutes. The questions were a bit clunky because they were looking for someone ASAP and there was only 2 days between the first and second interview, but I felt that was a much better approach for the company as well, because they got a lot more information this way: they could already verify basic coding skills themselves, and this way they got a new chunk of information they wouldn't have had otherwise.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >but what baffles me is that even a lot of smaller companies do this You named the exact problem with the industry. No one is going to complain if FAANG does this with top tier, life changing salaries. No one will object to learning and memorizing DS&A at a job where DS&A is used heavily. What people are upset about is your average no-name company hiring individuals based on things they won't use during the job, of which the knowledge is still incredibly varied[0], and they still complain about not being able to find anyone and play the "woe is me" card. [0]: Dare I say it, DS&A is such a big topic not everyone learns the same things. Thinking in terms of a tree is different from thinking in terms of a linked list, graph, tree, heap, stack, queue, you name it. Most LC medium/hard require time you won't get, information you might not have. This knowledge isn't as universal among skilled graduates as people like to believe. And we all know the moment candidates are able to just memorize questions about linked lists, hiring will jump to the next topic.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

The alternative is to push companies to pay for long interviews, be realistic with their requirements (stop asking LC for simple CRUD work), have some faith in schooling, start carrying some risks again, and use the probationary period for what it's designed. What's happening is companies are putting the burden of the risk on candidates more and more. Because they can. If candidates would put their foot down and stop accepting this, most of these shenanigans would stop. The junior market shows what happens when people are desperate for jobs and willing to bend over for any whim corporate has that might help their hiring process (even when most of it is completely unproven).

rethab 4y ago
> use the probationary period for what it's designed This is probably fine in an environment where the candidate has lots of other options, but think about this scenario: a person applying to multiple companies, possibly rejecting some offers, possibly relocating or otherwise changing their life, accept that one offer, and then be let go in their first weeks. Changing jobs can be emotionally difficult and being let go even more. If you have to restart your job search, because you were let go during the probation period, all the other roles you have applied to might have been filled. On top of this, contrary to when you were looking for a job last time, now you're actually unemployed and potentially under pressure to find something new. So, in essence I don't think this is good for candidates.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  You obviously can't take the above in a vacuum and think it's fine. You could say the same for the advice of "give people work which resembles what the company does" leading to a situation akin to having interns doing minimum wage work for free, putting pressure on others as a result. But as things stand, nothing is preventing companies from doing the above anyway. If they think you're a bad fit, they will use the probationary period to cut ties with you. This is perfectly viable today. Your example assumes current filtering methods do in fact increase the ratio of true : false positives, and taking some of them out would decrease that ratio. This is not something that has been proven, and I'd even argue it's something that can't be reasonably proven within the next few years. This is even worse when considering a few interview rounds can only filter for the most obvious dummies, but can't decisively tell you the performance of that individual a few weeks down the line. What your example does show is how much power employers have over employees. It just isn't healthy for individuals to have to carry this amount of risk while corporates continue to reap the benefits.