3 ms·

I use coding tests to weed out potential employers. As a general rule I'm barely willing to even interview. I can't remember the last time I spent more than 30

I use coding tests to weed out potential employers. As a general rule I'm barely willing to even interview. I can't remember the last time I spent more than 30 minutes "interviewing."

twawaaay 4y ago
That's fine. Some people don't want to put any effort getting a job or are not willing to show if they know how to program. I respect your position. But understand, you are making it tough for me to know if you are good developer or just one of those people who are good at talking their way through interviews or need to go to a hundred interviews to get a job by accident. You will not get hired if I have anything to say about it. I don't need to hire every good developer. I just need to hire some. The interview is optimised to make it unlikely for a bad apple to come through because it just cost too much to deal with people who are unable to perform. It is very hard to tell if a developer is in fact a good developer but it is pretty easy to spot a person who can't program their way out of a paper bag -- just get them to write a piece of code while you are watching them do it and explain what they are doing. And I also prefer to work with people who are easy to work with -- like people who don't make demands that don't bring them any value. One definition of stupid is people who cost other people without any benefit for themselves. They are just drag on everything but don't benefit from it. If you come to an interview that I have designed and tuned and start making demands to change this or that derailing my plan and creating no advantage for yourself it is a sign of particular flavour of stupidity, in my view. Smart people try to find a way to benefit themselves and even smarter people try to find a way to benefit both themselves and others by trying to find a mutually beneficial solution to their problems.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  I literally LOLed. You describe an interview process which attempts to compensate for your inability to quickly assess a person's talent/fit and try to play it off as if you're doing a favor for talented people you are interviewing. Then you had the gaul to be smug about it by implying I wasn't in the "smarter" category. I'm so happy to be at a place in my career where I don't have to tolerate being spoken to like that anymore.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    > You describe an interview process which attempts to compensate for your inability to quickly assess a person's talent/fit That's literally what interview process is. Because we can't immediately tell who is this person, we need to compensate for it and spend a bit more time with them. That's why it is called "interview" and not "welcoming ceremony".
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      You've used the word "we" when you meant "I." Not everyone shares your shortcomings in interviewing ability.
      - twawaaay 4y ago
        So to summarise, you require me to see your brilliance immediately with no work on your part and if I can't it is my shortcoming. This is smack in the middle of what I call a toxic, self absorbed and entitled personality. Good luck in your life. plonk
        Consultant32452 4y ago
        In my 20+ year career I've been on the interviewer side more than the interviewee side. I've hired dozens of people, never took more than 30 mins to make a decision, and never recommended a false positive. Hiring/interviewing/managing is not my primary role, it's something I do occasionally as a side-task. It's possible and I do it myself. Imagine for a moment if the interview process you describe actually went both ways. Have you ever seen an interviewee demand their hiring manager perform some mock management scenarios for them as part of the interview process? Of course not, because that's insulting and ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as doing the coding interview performance art. Hiring managers/interviewers often perceive themselves as being in a position of power, which is why they feel comfortable demanding ridiculous rituals of subjugation. It's very jarring for them to not be in a position of power, when an interviewee perceives themselves as their manager's moral and intellectual equal.
      - 4y ago

I use coding tests to weed out potential employers. As a general rule I'm barely willing to even interview. I can't remember the last time I spent more than 30 minutes "interviewing."

twawaaay 4y ago

That's fine. Some people don't want to put any effort getting a job or are not willing to show if they know how to program. I respect your position. But understand, you are making it tough for me to know if you are good developer or just one of those people who are good at talking their way through interviews or need to go to a hundred interviews to get a job by accident. You will not get hired if I have anything to say about it. I don't need to hire every good developer. I just need to hire some. The interview is optimised to make it unlikely for a bad apple to come through because it just cost too much to deal with people who are unable to perform. It is very hard to tell if a developer is in fact a good developer but it is pretty easy to spot a person who can't program their way out of a paper bag -- just get them to write a piece of code while you are watching them do it and explain what they are doing. And I also prefer to work with people who are easy to work with -- like people who don't make demands that don't bring them any value. One definition of stupid is people who cost other people without any benefit for themselves. They are just drag on everything but don't benefit from it. If you come to an interview that I have designed and tuned and start making demands to change this or that derailing my plan and creating no advantage for yourself it is a sign of particular flavour of stupidity, in my view. Smart people try to find a way to benefit themselves and even smarter people try to find a way to benefit both themselves and others by trying to find a mutually beneficial solution to their problems.

Consultant32452 4y ago
I literally LOLed. You describe an interview process which attempts to compensate for your inability to quickly assess a person's talent/fit and try to play it off as if you're doing a favor for talented people you are interviewing. Then you had the gaul to be smug about it by implying I wasn't in the "smarter" category. I'm so happy to be at a place in my career where I don't have to tolerate being spoken to like that anymore.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  > You describe an interview process which attempts to compensate for your inability to quickly assess a person's talent/fit That's literally what interview process is. Because we can't immediately tell who is this person, we need to compensate for it and spend a bit more time with them. That's why it is called "interview" and not "welcoming ceremony".
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    You've used the word "we" when you meant "I." Not everyone shares your shortcomings in interviewing ability.
    - twawaaay 4y ago
      So to summarise, you require me to see your brilliance immediately with no work on your part and if I can't it is my shortcoming. This is smack in the middle of what I call a toxic, self absorbed and entitled personality. Good luck in your life. plonk
      - Consultant32452 4y ago
        In my 20+ year career I've been on the interviewer side more than the interviewee side. I've hired dozens of people, never took more than 30 mins to make a decision, and never recommended a false positive. Hiring/interviewing/managing is not my primary role, it's something I do occasionally as a side-task. It's possible and I do it myself. Imagine for a moment if the interview process you describe actually went both ways. Have you ever seen an interviewee demand their hiring manager perform some mock management scenarios for them as part of the interview process? Of course not, because that's insulting and ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as doing the coding interview performance art. Hiring managers/interviewers often perceive themselves as being in a position of power, which is why they feel comfortable demanding ridiculous rituals of subjugation. It's very jarring for them to not be in a position of power, when an interviewee perceives themselves as their manager's moral and intellectual equal.
    - 4y ago