6 ms·

I definitely think "we do not do leetcode interviews" and maybe "we only have three interviews total" would be selling points on a job posting. People who are

I definitely think "we do not do leetcode interviews" and maybe "we only have three interviews total" would be selling points on a job posting. People who are experienced in the field don't want to go through the same hoops that newbies do just to prove they know how to write basic algorithms.

adamsmith143 4y ago
http://they.whiteboarded.me/companies-that-dont-whiteboard.html http://they.whiteboarded.me/companies-that-dont-whiteboard.h...
- Patrol8394 4y ago
  I am not sure if this is kept up to date. I did interview at DoorDash and they definitely do leetcode style interview.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Personally I do because I enjoy working with very smart people. The backlash against leetcode is the same as backlash against other types of tests: most people are going to fail and most people don't like failing, so they blame the test.
- Patrol8394 4y ago
  leetcode == smart ? oO that's new I interview many candidates at FAANG, I can easily tell the ones that have prep by just doing leetcode and the ones that knows the shit. I couldn't care less if you can solve all kinds of complex dynamic programming challenges. I ask coding questions that you won't find in leetcode and requires problem solving skill and good craft. And this is because I do like working with smart people and not with people good at memorizing patterns.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    I consider solving technical challenges in interview the "LC style" interview as compared with talking about your past experience or language trivia grab bag. I am not saying literally ask questions found on leetcode.com I think it is easier to know the shit to do LC interviews than somehow memorizing the question bank. I haven't seen many people succeed who were unskilled but managed to just memorize the questions.
    - Patrol8394 4y ago
      so how come that I find a good chunk of swe at FAANG are not that smart, and barely get anything done. Plus the quality of their work (generally speaking) is very low compared to what one would expect. And this is true across the board, it is a recurring theme when talking with peers. I think LC style interview have ruined the interview process in the tech industry. Note: I do ask candidates to code during the interview, but I ask things that are related to real problem, some of which, I had to solve in my day-to-day. In addition, I put a lot of emphasis on how well they articulate their thought process, and the quality of their craft. Also, I would not discount `past experience talk` that easily. Actually I use that to drill down in their resume to better understand their real contribution. More often than not, people just lie. They are very easy to spot. At that point is game over. I don't care if you nailed the coding. If you lie and oversell yourself you are done. Another thing that I find very annoying is that very often interview are conducted by junior engineer, and they don't have imo the maturity and experience to properly assess candidate skills and potential. You either do well according to what their expected solution is, or you are out. Interviewing is not just a binary process coding well yes/not. It is a little more involved. I passed candidates that did not do well on coding, but I was convinced they had potential. Whereas I did not pass candidate that did very well on coding, but did not show any interest or passion at all.
      - hiq 4y ago
        > so how come that I find a good chunk of swe at FAANG are not that smart You put the bar wherever you want. A company can decide to set it lower than what you would expect or like, but it could still make business sense, e.g. if 99%+ of hires still perform well with this bar and the company would like to hire faster. This is related to: > and barely get anything done. Plus the quality of their work (generally speaking) is very low That's a problem of the performance review process. If everybody considers that someone is not delivering, that could be for multiple reasons, and even with a very high hiring bar that could still happen, so you can't rely solely on interviews. If you don't have a good performance review process, you'll end up with worse hiring because you can't measure the impact of your changes. > I passed candidates that did not do well on coding, but I was convinced they had potential. Whereas I did not pass candidate that did very well on coding, but did not show any interest or passion at all. Can you do that objectively? It's very easy to introduce bias if you try to evaluate whether candidates show passion.
- woeirua 4y ago
  I guess Sergey and Larry weren't "smart" then because they never went through a leetcode interview.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    If you think what I just said implies what you just said, then you are the type of person I would not want to work with.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  The backlash is the same as the one against standardized testing methods in school. People that don’t fit the mold of the testing method will fail regardless of how competent they are at their actual job. It’s good you like that I suppose, but it sounds absolutely bonkers to me.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > don’t fit the mold of the testing method will fail regardless of how competent they are at their actual job. The mold being answering questions about their supposed area of expertise. I think people really like to claim that they are misunderstood geniuses who just don't fit the mold of being able to answer questions about the things they know. I have no doubt that such people exist, but I would not want to scrap an evaluation system simply because it doesn't catch every possible person, more important to me is keeping bad people out.
    - Patrol8394 4y ago
      > keeping bad people out you seem very confident about that. In my experience LC/FAANG style interview don't keep bad people out.
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        Do they keep all bad people out? No. But I have never encountered a company that doesn't have a on-the-spot technical interview (involving coding or math) that has had more success keeping bad engineers out than FAANG.
        Patrol8394 4y ago
        You can implement all kind of interview processes, you will always end up hiring candidates that turns out to be not a good fit. I am arguing that LC/FAANG interview does not do a better job at filtering them out. The solution: accept that you will do bad hiring, but that you will let them go as well. Instead, everyone want to be politically correct and the play safe. So people are hardly let go. Also working at FAANG implying you are a stellar swe is a big time BS.
- Cd00d 4y ago
throwaway2037 4y ago
You wrote: <<People who are experienced in the field don't want to go through the same hoops that newbies do just to prove they know how to write basic algorithms.>> I am constantly interviewing candidates for roles at my company. It seems like CVs are a complete gamble. Either some are lies, or wildy understated, and everything in between -- at all levels of experience! "[J]ust to prove..." and yet so many can not do the 2022 version of FizzBuzz. I am stunned how many senior (well, so they say!) hands-on technical applicants cannot do basic things like write a very simple linked list class, or explain to me how a hash map works. For get about explaining the finer points of sorting algorithms (honestly, very low value in my line of work). There is no reasonable alternative to testing of some kind for hands-on techincal roles -- I am flexible about method: (1) white board coding (ugh in 2022), (2) IDE/text editor on shared PC / video chat (meh / eh in 2022), or (3) take home (the best in 2022, even if there are drawbacks for people with families). Joel Spolsky said it best about hiring: The goal is to avoid bad hires. Average and above are fine.
- Goronmon 4y ago
  ...explain to me how a hash map works. For get about explaining the finer points of sorting algorithms I've been in software development for 15 years and being able to explain either of these things has never come up and I probably wouldn't be able to give a decent answer without reviewing the topics specifically.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Yes, companies are hiring for competency not tenure or years of life lived while holding job. If you want the latter, I have heard it is more structured that way in Japan and much of Europe. I would expect most people I hire to be able to explain how a hash map works.
    - csomar 4y ago
      Depends on what exactly your company is doing? Why do you care if an applicant understand how a hash map works; and what's particular about a hash map? I'd care more about an applicant understanding the concept of a hash; or hashing in general. If an applicant shows that he understands that a hash is a magical and fascinating mathematical concept; and it can have uses in Information/Computers, that would be more interesting (to me) than someone who memorized a hash map definition. He can always learn about a particular application of hashing (hash map, for example). But the latter shows aptitude and capacity to learn these later on the job.
battery_glasses 4y ago
Basic algorithms? FAANG algorithm questions are usually far from basic.
mattnewton 4y ago
> "we do not do leetcode interviews" and maybe "we only have three interviews total" would be selling points on a job posting. It depends on the job. I have had interviews that broke the mold here and were panel discussions or more job-talk experience, and I found the interviews uniquely exhausting because they required their own set of skills to study for that were different from the “leet code” style. At the extreme end were the take home projects, which I simply didn’t have time to do for every company and were extremely unattractive to me for that reason. I actually find doing leetcode style interviews for me required the least amount of prep and was the most straightforward, especially when they were structured to leave me with time to ask and talk to real engineers at the company.
lmm 4y ago
Three interviews is now an "only"? Man this industry is fucked.

adamsmith143 4y ago

http://they.whiteboarded.me/companies-that-dont-whiteboard.html http://they.whiteboarded.me/companies-that-dont-whiteboard.h...

Patrol8394 4y ago
I am not sure if this is kept up to date. I did interview at DoorDash and they definitely do leetcode style interview.

whimsicalism 4y ago

Personally I do because I enjoy working with very smart people. The backlash against leetcode is the same as backlash against other types of tests: most people are going to fail and most people don't like failing, so they blame the test.

Patrol8394 4y ago
leetcode == smart ? oO that's new I interview many candidates at FAANG, I can easily tell the ones that have prep by just doing leetcode and the ones that knows the shit. I couldn't care less if you can solve all kinds of complex dynamic programming challenges. I ask coding questions that you won't find in leetcode and requires problem solving skill and good craft. And this is because I do like working with smart people and not with people good at memorizing patterns.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  I consider solving technical challenges in interview the "LC style" interview as compared with talking about your past experience or language trivia grab bag. I am not saying literally ask questions found on leetcode.com I think it is easier to know the shit to do LC interviews than somehow memorizing the question bank. I haven't seen many people succeed who were unskilled but managed to just memorize the questions.
  - Patrol8394 4y ago
    so how come that I find a good chunk of swe at FAANG are not that smart, and barely get anything done. Plus the quality of their work (generally speaking) is very low compared to what one would expect. And this is true across the board, it is a recurring theme when talking with peers. I think LC style interview have ruined the interview process in the tech industry. Note: I do ask candidates to code during the interview, but I ask things that are related to real problem, some of which, I had to solve in my day-to-day. In addition, I put a lot of emphasis on how well they articulate their thought process, and the quality of their craft. Also, I would not discount `past experience talk` that easily. Actually I use that to drill down in their resume to better understand their real contribution. More often than not, people just lie. They are very easy to spot. At that point is game over. I don't care if you nailed the coding. If you lie and oversell yourself you are done. Another thing that I find very annoying is that very often interview are conducted by junior engineer, and they don't have imo the maturity and experience to properly assess candidate skills and potential. You either do well according to what their expected solution is, or you are out. Interviewing is not just a binary process coding well yes/not. It is a little more involved. I passed candidates that did not do well on coding, but I was convinced they had potential. Whereas I did not pass candidate that did very well on coding, but did not show any interest or passion at all.
    - hiq 4y ago
      > so how come that I find a good chunk of swe at FAANG are not that smart You put the bar wherever you want. A company can decide to set it lower than what you would expect or like, but it could still make business sense, e.g. if 99%+ of hires still perform well with this bar and the company would like to hire faster. This is related to: > and barely get anything done. Plus the quality of their work (generally speaking) is very low That's a problem of the performance review process. If everybody considers that someone is not delivering, that could be for multiple reasons, and even with a very high hiring bar that could still happen, so you can't rely solely on interviews. If you don't have a good performance review process, you'll end up with worse hiring because you can't measure the impact of your changes. > I passed candidates that did not do well on coding, but I was convinced they had potential. Whereas I did not pass candidate that did very well on coding, but did not show any interest or passion at all. Can you do that objectively? It's very easy to introduce bias if you try to evaluate whether candidates show passion.
woeirua 4y ago
I guess Sergey and Larry weren't "smart" then because they never went through a leetcode interview.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  If you think what I just said implies what you just said, then you are the type of person I would not want to work with.
Aeolun 4y ago
The backlash is the same as the one against standardized testing methods in school. People that don’t fit the mold of the testing method will fail regardless of how competent they are at their actual job. It’s good you like that I suppose, but it sounds absolutely bonkers to me.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  > don’t fit the mold of the testing method will fail regardless of how competent they are at their actual job. The mold being answering questions about their supposed area of expertise. I think people really like to claim that they are misunderstood geniuses who just don't fit the mold of being able to answer questions about the things they know. I have no doubt that such people exist, but I would not want to scrap an evaluation system simply because it doesn't catch every possible person, more important to me is keeping bad people out.
  - Patrol8394 4y ago
    > keeping bad people out you seem very confident about that. In my experience LC/FAANG style interview don't keep bad people out.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      Do they keep all bad people out? No. But I have never encountered a company that doesn't have a on-the-spot technical interview (involving coding or math) that has had more success keeping bad engineers out than FAANG.
      - Patrol8394 4y ago
        You can implement all kind of interview processes, you will always end up hiring candidates that turns out to be not a good fit. I am arguing that LC/FAANG interview does not do a better job at filtering them out. The solution: accept that you will do bad hiring, but that you will let them go as well. Instead, everyone want to be politically correct and the play safe. So people are hardly let go. Also working at FAANG implying you are a stellar swe is a big time BS.
Cd00d 4y ago

throwaway2037 4y ago

You wrote: <<People who are experienced in the field don't want to go through the same hoops that newbies do just to prove they know how to write basic algorithms.>> I am constantly interviewing candidates for roles at my company. It seems like CVs are a complete gamble. Either some are lies, or wildy understated, and everything in between -- at all levels of experience! "[J]ust to prove..." and yet so many can not do the 2022 version of FizzBuzz. I am stunned how many senior (well, so they say!) hands-on technical applicants cannot do basic things like write a very simple linked list class, or explain to me how a hash map works. For get about explaining the finer points of sorting algorithms (honestly, very low value in my line of work). There is no reasonable alternative to testing of some kind for hands-on techincal roles -- I am flexible about method: (1) white board coding (ugh in 2022), (2) IDE/text editor on shared PC / video chat (meh / eh in 2022), or (3) take home (the best in 2022, even if there are drawbacks for people with families). Joel Spolsky said it best about hiring: The goal is to avoid bad hires. Average and above are fine.

Goronmon 4y ago
...explain to me how a hash map works. For get about explaining the finer points of sorting algorithms I've been in software development for 15 years and being able to explain either of these things has never come up and I probably wouldn't be able to give a decent answer without reviewing the topics specifically.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Yes, companies are hiring for competency not tenure or years of life lived while holding job. If you want the latter, I have heard it is more structured that way in Japan and much of Europe. I would expect most people I hire to be able to explain how a hash map works.
  - csomar 4y ago
    Depends on what exactly your company is doing? Why do you care if an applicant understand how a hash map works; and what's particular about a hash map? I'd care more about an applicant understanding the concept of a hash; or hashing in general. If an applicant shows that he understands that a hash is a magical and fascinating mathematical concept; and it can have uses in Information/Computers, that would be more interesting (to me) than someone who memorized a hash map definition. He can always learn about a particular application of hashing (hash map, for example). But the latter shows aptitude and capacity to learn these later on the job.

battery_glasses 4y ago

Basic algorithms? FAANG algorithm questions are usually far from basic.

mattnewton 4y ago

> "we do not do leetcode interviews" and maybe "we only have three interviews total" would be selling points on a job posting. It depends on the job. I have had interviews that broke the mold here and were panel discussions or more job-talk experience, and I found the interviews uniquely exhausting because they required their own set of skills to study for that were different from the “leet code” style. At the extreme end were the take home projects, which I simply didn’t have time to do for every company and were extremely unattractive to me for that reason. I actually find doing leetcode style interviews for me required the least amount of prep and was the most straightforward, especially when they were structured to leave me with time to ask and talk to real engineers at the company.

lmm 4y ago

Three interviews is now an "only"? Man this industry is fucked.