3 ms·
> But I make sure to not judge them on that. [...] The content of the interview is the real meat and potatoes Which is to say, the difference between a genuine
by ajross 4y ago
> But I make sure to not judge them on that. [...] The content of the interview is the real meat and potatoes
Which is to say, the difference between a genuinely good candidate and one that merely claims to be is clearly visible in exactly the kind of interview the linked article is arguing against.
I think there's lots of room for criticism of the Big Tech Coding Interview. But "it doesn't work" is just not reasonable. It does work, it objectively works very well, probably better than other techniques (the existence proof being that there aren't any other hiring organizations out there beating the FAANGs at their own HR game).
If you want to criticize, point out that it doesn't necessarily work fairly. It rejects specific qualified candidates more often than it should, and it fails to reliably measure other areas of qualification than mere technical skill.
But don't say it doesn't work, or that it's a waste of time. Show, don't tell. If you know how to hire better people, then do so and beat the world.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoI have one and it’s quite difficult because it requires the interviewer to know their shit: drill down on a feature or technology listed in the resume in the interview with the developer. Get into the technical scope, the tradeoffs, pinch points and cruxes of problem set. Understand what the definition of success was in that feature and the individual contribution involved. A dev who only passably did the work or did so heavily relying on others expertise won’t be able to answer precise trade off questions in this way. Ultimately though if they did the work they did the work, and that’s more important than any leetcode/trivia nonsense.
- Hermitian909 4y agoPeople have been re-discovering this technique for over a decade now at least. It's actually used at quite a few big tech companies, but only for strategic hires. You touch on one of the reasons this technique isn't used in general: > it’s quite difficult because it requires the interviewer to know their shit Having an interviewing team in an engineering org n > 100 with the following properties is nearly impossible: 1. Everyone knows their shit 2. Everyone cares enough to give the interview well 3. Has enough throughput to meet the company's hiring needs 4. The interviews are given in such a way that legal isn't worried we'll get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit