4 ms·

Tell me about it. I have nearly 20 years of experience in CS, and hold an advanced degree. I have 5 years of experience in a very niche field which is relativel

by ajays 15y ago

Tell me about it. I have nearly 20 years of experience in CS, and hold an advanced degree. I have 5 years of experience in a very niche field which is relatively hot. I was approached by Facebook for this specific purpose. They invited me in for just a "chat", asked me if I'd be interested in working with them. Obviously I said yeah, I'd be willing to talk. They set up an in-person interview. Just 45 minutes they said. So I show up, fully expecting a discussion about that area, my background, etc. Instead, I get a random coder who wasn't even making eye contact when asking questions. And the questions? Elementary CS stuff that any undergrad would know. Now, obviously I know them too; heck, I taught Algorithms courses in grad school. But why waste my time with this crap? You can hire almost any fresh graduate from a top-40 school who would do a halfway decent job at answering those questions. What does asking a PhD "how to print the levels of a binary tree, one per line" tell you about his work? (That wasn't the question, but that was the level of questioning). The sad part is: I can waste a couple of weeks of my life, go to Glassdoor etc. and basically memorize these questions. I'll probably stand a good chance of blowing the interviewer away by pretending to solve them on the spot. But what does that tell you about how I am at real-life problems?

jrockway 15y ago
The cost of hiring someone who can't do this stuff makes it worth the risk of putting off someone like you. Sometimes you have to ask rather than be faithful if you haven't personally worked with the person you want to hire. A shitty programmer will kill an entire team.
- sgrove 15y ago
  There's a line here - I think the interview should cover a lot of bases, but by no means should a hire be a concrete thing. The first two weeks should be an intensive, fully-paid interview/trial-by-fire. I suppose, I just don't see why a shitty programmer couldn't be filtered out almost immediately through this technique. Maybe it's a company size/age difference - what size company do you have in mind?
  - jrockway 15y ago
    In the real world, people often have to relocate to work for your particular company. So you're out $50,000 if they don't work out in the first two weeks and you fire them. Also, people that will work for you are working for you (rather than themselves) because they value stability. You owe it to them to get it right the first time. (Also, at big companies, people cannot be fired. If you fire someone, their manager "loses an open" and they are less likely to get promoted. Remember, you have to deal with the bad employee, not your manager.)
tedunangst 15y ago
I've interviewed a few people who thought the elementary questions I was asking were beneath them. I insisted, politely, that they humor me, because it's something we make everybody do, nothing personal. They failed. Hard. Some people are probably bullshitters, but my theory is that some are just people who used to code (a little) but have since moved on to making architectural diagrams for so long they've forgotten what it's like in the trenches. Unfortunately, if you're interviewing for a job in the trenches, you need to demonstrate the ability to do the job. It's entirely possible they screwed up, depending on why they asked you in, but once a company starts letting in people they "know" can code without verifying it first hand, things go bad fast.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- timr 15y ago
  "I insisted, politely, that they humor me, because it's something we make everybody do, nothing personal. They failed. Hard." I'm sensitive to that argument, but I also think the parent has a point. Coding the solution to a toy problem on a whiteboard has only limited correlation with the ability of a candidate to solve real-world problems. We use the tool because it's one of the best we have, not because it's a great tool. And if your interviewers can't summon the energy to make eye contact with a candidate...well, they're one-tool cavemen. Most software engineering demands communication skills and culture fit, yet we're still screening as if individual mental horsepower were the most important factor. The danger in dismissing someone because they can't stand at a whiteboard and barf out the code to print the levels of a binary tree is that it has next to nothing to do with real work. That's just a fact. I probably couldn't do it correctly on a whiteboard, on my first try right now, and I write a lot of code. And I'm sure some hiring manager would eagerly dismiss me as "another frickin' PhD that doesn't know how to write code." The point is twofold: 1) As in all things, good judgment is key. Sometimes the candidate can bork the technical question, and still deserve a hire. 2) If you find yourself depending exclusively upon the outcome of coding puzzles to screen candidates, you've already failed.
  - 15y ago
kamaal 15y ago
I can waste a couple of weeks of my life, go to Glassdoor etc. and basically memorize these questions. I'll probably stand a good chance of blowing the interviewer away by pretending to solve them on the spot. But what does that tell you about how I am at real-life problems? Most of the so-called algorithm experts I've seen fit into this knows-theory-but-no-practical-stuff category. The fact there are some list of questions and their standards variants. All you need to do is just crawl over interview forums. I assume they even have books, as in pdf ready made for these purposes. Just ensure you read all those questions before hand. May be spend an hour a day to get familiar with them. Go to the interview, when the interviewer asks the question act as though you've never heard the question. Act like you've been having it tough. But then suddenly like a hero emerging from a crisis present the solution to the interviewer. You have not clue how many people do this. I've seen candidates, whose only job is this. They change a company every year. Spend half their day everyday studying and collecting salary and interview trends. Apply to a big brand, game the interview collect the x% hike stay for an year and then move on. These kind of people are an online club. And they tend to hire only their kind. No regards for the guy's actual work knowledge, his ability to solve real world problems. His knowledge of a programming language, tools, techniques. His productivity all that is irrelevant. All that matters in these large web companies is a Ivy league brand and theoretical knowledge and some arcane facts memorized at college. Close to 98% of the so called algorithm experts fit into this category. The genuine 2% are at places they like to work at and surely they pick the place they want to work at and not the other way around.
- dsolomon 15y ago
  Show me a quality company to work for and I'll show you people who will spend more than a year working there.
andralex 15y ago
As a Facebook employee who holds a PhD, I can say we are constantly preoccupied about improving the quality of our interview process. In particular, the topic of how to adapt the interview process advanced degree holders comes about quite often. For example, I recall we recently discussed that we should offer PhD candidates the option to give a talk about their research. (The option is indeed available.) That being said, I think a dismissive or patronizing attitude towards a coding interview would be mistaken. Allow me to explain. It is quite well known that the ability to code is poorly correlated with holding an advanced degree or other formal pieces of evidence. A candidate with strong credentials understands this and should, therefore, not be in the least offended by being asked coding questions. As a good professional, the strong candidate would handle the questions with panache and should be ready for more difficult questions, discussing advanced topics linked to the question at hand, or discussing her particular area of expertise. Either way, she must be able to code her way out of a paper bag, and I see nothing wrong with the interview process probing for that. I've interviewed a few dozen engineers while at Facebook, many with advanced degrees (because recruiters pair as well as they can interviewers with interviewees for areas of expertise), some from top 10 universities. I ask 2-4 coding questions extracted from my daily job, starting from undergraduate level and on rare occasions ending with a difficult complexity question. Nobody has ever done perfectly well, and for a variety of reasons holding an advanced degree doesn't correlate strongly with doing well. All in all, I think you'd be mistaken to believe two weeks of rote memorization would be enough to pass the Facebook interview, which is very difficult. Overall, an attitude of professionalism, modesty, and focus helps a lot in any interview.

by ajays 15y ago

jrockway 15y ago

The cost of hiring someone who can't do this stuff makes it worth the risk of putting off someone like you. Sometimes you have to ask rather than be faithful if you haven't personally worked with the person you want to hire. A shitty programmer will kill an entire team.

sgrove 15y ago
There's a line here - I think the interview should cover a lot of bases, but by no means should a hire be a concrete thing. The first two weeks should be an intensive, fully-paid interview/trial-by-fire. I suppose, I just don't see why a shitty programmer couldn't be filtered out almost immediately through this technique. Maybe it's a company size/age difference - what size company do you have in mind?
- jrockway 15y ago
  In the real world, people often have to relocate to work for your particular company. So you're out $50,000 if they don't work out in the first two weeks and you fire them. Also, people that will work for you are working for you (rather than themselves) because they value stability. You owe it to them to get it right the first time. (Also, at big companies, people cannot be fired. If you fire someone, their manager "loses an open" and they are less likely to get promoted. Remember, you have to deal with the bad employee, not your manager.)

tedunangst 15y ago

I've interviewed a few people who thought the elementary questions I was asking were beneath them. I insisted, politely, that they humor me, because it's something we make everybody do, nothing personal. They failed. Hard. Some people are probably bullshitters, but my theory is that some are just people who used to code (a little) but have since moved on to making architectural diagrams for so long they've forgotten what it's like in the trenches. Unfortunately, if you're interviewing for a job in the trenches, you need to demonstrate the ability to do the job. It's entirely possible they screwed up, depending on why they asked you in, but once a company starts letting in people they "know" can code without verifying it first hand, things go bad fast.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
timr 15y ago
"I insisted, politely, that they humor me, because it's something we make everybody do, nothing personal. They failed. Hard." I'm sensitive to that argument, but I also think the parent has a point. Coding the solution to a toy problem on a whiteboard has only limited correlation with the ability of a candidate to solve real-world problems. We use the tool because it's one of the best we have, not because it's a great tool. And if your interviewers can't summon the energy to make eye contact with a candidate...well, they're one-tool cavemen. Most software engineering demands communication skills and culture fit, yet we're still screening as if individual mental horsepower were the most important factor. The danger in dismissing someone because they can't stand at a whiteboard and barf out the code to print the levels of a binary tree is that it has next to nothing to do with real work. That's just a fact. I probably couldn't do it correctly on a whiteboard, on my first try right now, and I write a lot of code. And I'm sure some hiring manager would eagerly dismiss me as "another frickin' PhD that doesn't know how to write code." The point is twofold: 1) As in all things, good judgment is key. Sometimes the candidate can bork the technical question, and still deserve a hire. 2) If you find yourself depending exclusively upon the outcome of coding puzzles to screen candidates, you've already failed.
- 15y ago

kamaal 15y ago

I can waste a couple of weeks of my life, go to Glassdoor etc. and basically memorize these questions. I'll probably stand a good chance of blowing the interviewer away by pretending to solve them on the spot. But what does that tell you about how I am at real-life problems? Most of the so-called algorithm experts I've seen fit into this knows-theory-but-no-practical-stuff category. The fact there are some list of questions and their standards variants. All you need to do is just crawl over interview forums. I assume they even have books, as in pdf ready made for these purposes. Just ensure you read all those questions before hand. May be spend an hour a day to get familiar with them. Go to the interview, when the interviewer asks the question act as though you've never heard the question. Act like you've been having it tough. But then suddenly like a hero emerging from a crisis present the solution to the interviewer. You have not clue how many people do this. I've seen candidates, whose only job is this. They change a company every year. Spend half their day everyday studying and collecting salary and interview trends. Apply to a big brand, game the interview collect the x% hike stay for an year and then move on. These kind of people are an online club. And they tend to hire only their kind. No regards for the guy's actual work knowledge, his ability to solve real world problems. His knowledge of a programming language, tools, techniques. His productivity all that is irrelevant. All that matters in these large web companies is a Ivy league brand and theoretical knowledge and some arcane facts memorized at college. Close to 98% of the so called algorithm experts fit into this category. The genuine 2% are at places they like to work at and surely they pick the place they want to work at and not the other way around.

dsolomon 15y ago
Show me a quality company to work for and I'll show you people who will spend more than a year working there.

andralex 15y ago

As a Facebook employee who holds a PhD, I can say we are constantly preoccupied about improving the quality of our interview process. In particular, the topic of how to adapt the interview process advanced degree holders comes about quite often. For example, I recall we recently discussed that we should offer PhD candidates the option to give a talk about their research. (The option is indeed available.) That being said, I think a dismissive or patronizing attitude towards a coding interview would be mistaken. Allow me to explain. It is quite well known that the ability to code is poorly correlated with holding an advanced degree or other formal pieces of evidence. A candidate with strong credentials understands this and should, therefore, not be in the least offended by being asked coding questions. As a good professional, the strong candidate would handle the questions with panache and should be ready for more difficult questions, discussing advanced topics linked to the question at hand, or discussing her particular area of expertise. Either way, she must be able to code her way out of a paper bag, and I see nothing wrong with the interview process probing for that. I've interviewed a few dozen engineers while at Facebook, many with advanced degrees (because recruiters pair as well as they can interviewers with interviewees for areas of expertise), some from top 10 universities. I ask 2-4 coding questions extracted from my daily job, starting from undergraduate level and on rare occasions ending with a difficult complexity question. Nobody has ever done perfectly well, and for a variety of reasons holding an advanced degree doesn't correlate strongly with doing well. All in all, I think you'd be mistaken to believe two weeks of rote memorization would be enough to pass the Facebook interview, which is very difficult. Overall, an attitude of professionalism, modesty, and focus helps a lot in any interview.