4 ms·

Going through the details is the way to estimate candidate's true knowledge of a subject. Ask an easy question, then ask a very hard one, repeat depending on an

Going through the details is the way to estimate candidate's true knowledge of a subject. Ask an easy question, then ask a very hard one, repeat depending on answers, i.e. basically do a binary search: - Do you know what SSL/TLS is? general - What's the maximum size of SSL protocol record? specific - What's a cipher suite? general - How is DH-anon suite is set up? specific ... - What is a linked list? - What is offsetof (and how is it relevant)? ... - What is TCP? general - What is TCP/Vegas? specific ... This is the quickest way to converge to an actual level of expertise, and it really helps with filtering out people with bullshit resumes and those who cheated their way through an offline problem solving. We would say something like "You are not expected to answer all questions, we are just trying to understand what you know and what you don't know."

arghnoname 15y ago
There's always a downside to every approach though. Some people get flustered if they have to say "I don't know" too often, so instead of bouncing from tough to easy, I'd probably prefer to progress from easy to tough. People will feel confident until they hit their limits. Their limits are what you are looking for (presumably), not their ability to think clearly when they are scared they just blew the interview on a question you didn't really expect them to answer.
spiffytech 15y ago
I recently interviewed for a position with this sort of technical interview. I felt it worked very well. The interviewer was able to cover a wide range of topics in varying depth, and could see what I could easily recall and what I struggled with. With the right set of questions, and some hints when the candidate struggles, you can very effectively gauge a candidate's limits on a subject, and see how they try to puzzle things out when they don't know an answer but know enough to take a good guess. The key distinguishing factor of this method, IMO, is a candidate cannot memorize enough answers to bluff their way through a good questions list. If a candidate really is an N out of 10 with technology $FOO like they claim, they should have no problem answering most/all of your 50+ N/10-level questions for $FOO (my technical interview consisted of ~2 hours of this sort of interrogation for a straightforward junior web dev position. Interview length, in this interviewing style, is important for ensuring you've exhausted a candidate's book knowledge).

arghnoname 15y ago

There's always a downside to every approach though. Some people get flustered if they have to say "I don't know" too often, so instead of bouncing from tough to easy, I'd probably prefer to progress from easy to tough. People will feel confident until they hit their limits. Their limits are what you are looking for (presumably), not their ability to think clearly when they are scared they just blew the interview on a question you didn't really expect them to answer.

spiffytech 15y ago

I recently interviewed for a position with this sort of technical interview. I felt it worked very well. The interviewer was able to cover a wide range of topics in varying depth, and could see what I could easily recall and what I struggled with. With the right set of questions, and some hints when the candidate struggles, you can very effectively gauge a candidate's limits on a subject, and see how they try to puzzle things out when they don't know an answer but know enough to take a good guess. The key distinguishing factor of this method, IMO, is a candidate cannot memorize enough answers to bluff their way through a good questions list. If a candidate really is an N out of 10 with technology $FOO like they claim, they should have no problem answering most/all of your 50+ N/10-level questions for $FOO (my technical interview consisted of ~2 hours of this sort of interrogation for a straightforward junior web dev position. Interview length, in this interviewing style, is important for ensuring you've exhausted a candidate's book knowledge).