3 ms·

Unless you explicitly highlight to a candidate how 3 is impossible, you are excluding candidates who would do what you want in a real job, but not in an intervi

Unless you explicitly highlight to a candidate how 3 is impossible, you are excluding candidates who would do what you want in a real job, but not in an interview setting. When I was younger, I was always stumped by "trivial" questions, as in why would someone ask me a question with an obvious answer (though my pool of "obvious" answers was pretty large, so I had to tone down those expectations as well)? I've learned to consider all questions in the simplest way possible, but my brain simply glosses over those otherwise, and especially in a test setting, I might look to see if I am missing something ("what's the caveat?"). Curiously, I also do pretty good in leetcode style questions, but I think people are usually taken aback by the number of things I consider simple (I appear to not know shit simply because I avoid talking in big words ;)). While I applaud your effort in keeping the process simple and "real", keep in mind that nothing beats saying explicitly what you are after with each stage: most people in "interview mode" think differently from "get stuff done mode".

cik 4y ago
> Unless you explicitly highlight to a candidate how 3 is impossible, you are excluding candidates who would do what you want in a real job, but not in an interview setting. That's exactly what we do. We make it abundantly clear that it's not possible, nor is the expectation such that it happens. We also turn this into a collaboration and pairing role, with times to dive in and out.. pretty much like exactly what this role entails. This is how we avoid the "take away assignment" or "l33tc0de" problem. We invest in our technical interviews. Similarly - we let candidates know in advance that this is exactly how they take place, and that they're free to use their own equipment if they prefer. The idea is to "simulate" work. This doesn't replace the need to go deeper. Instead, this eliminates a very specific type of filter, in exchange for getting to know each other, collaborating, and hopefully mutual understanding.
- necovek 4y ago
  That's great to hear! As for going deeper, I don't think there's a way for someone to go deep enough without actually putting them on the job :)

cik 4y ago

> Unless you explicitly highlight to a candidate how 3 is impossible, you are excluding candidates who would do what you want in a real job, but not in an interview setting. That's exactly what we do. We make it abundantly clear that it's not possible, nor is the expectation such that it happens. We also turn this into a collaboration and pairing role, with times to dive in and out.. pretty much like exactly what this role entails. This is how we avoid the "take away assignment" or "l33tc0de" problem. We invest in our technical interviews. Similarly - we let candidates know in advance that this is exactly how they take place, and that they're free to use their own equipment if they prefer. The idea is to "simulate" work. This doesn't replace the need to go deeper. Instead, this eliminates a very specific type of filter, in exchange for getting to know each other, collaborating, and hopefully mutual understanding.

necovek 4y ago
That's great to hear! As for going deeper, I don't think there's a way for someone to go deep enough without actually putting them on the job :)