I like this a lot! Somehow, that little detail you mentioned at the beginning -- that he had the code printed out for you -- feels like a lovely subtle little g

I like this a lot! Somehow, that little detail you mentioned at the beginning -- that he had the code printed out for you -- feels like a lovely subtle little green flag. I've long felt that 60 minutes is sufficient for a competent interviewer. In a past life, I was tasked with interview-slots where I had to both assess the candidate and double-check the signal other interviewers got, and I would spend: - 5 minutes on intros, - 15 minutes on a coding exercise, - 15 minutes on architecture discussion about something else, - 15 minutes on "behavioral" questions about something other than *those*, - and 5-10 minutes on "do you have any questions for me." Et voila -- that was the whole interview. A fairly simple recipe, and it turns out it yielded equal-or-better signal than all the other interviewers on the loop put together, > 90% of the time. I love the fact that your interviewer got it down to 30 minutes, and I especially love that part of his interview process was sitting down with the candidate and teaching something new on-the-fly. (If I had to guess, it was your "I don't know" -- followed by how you handled being taught something -- that sealed the deal for your offer.) That sounds way better than a lot of the behavioral-question fluff that I used to try when I was still finding my way as an interviewer. I'll have to give that a try.