5 ms·

This is just depressing. How is the technical interview process valuable _for companies_ at this point when it seems to be evaluating how well you can prepare

This is just depressing. How is the technical interview process valuable _for companies_ at this point when it seems to be evaluating how well you can prepare for their specific leetcode interview, and how well you practice the incantation of the system design problem (make sure you follow the template and the pattern!) - do they really think they're selecting the best candidates, and not the most practiced interviewers?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ergonaught 4y ago
They aren't putting much real thought into it. Beyond the barest basics, 99% of the time the only thing that's genuinely relevant is whether or not the team wants to work with the candidate. Almost nothing else that is relevant is even knowable until after they're actually working. Exceptions only prove the rule. It's a sham but I guess it makes someone feel like they've contributed value somehow.
abrahms 4y ago
It's a selection for socio-economic status. Hiring people who have enough excess time to do this grinding excludes people like parents of young toddlers. So.. you'll probably get a bunch of young single people w/ enough income to not need to have multiple gigs.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  Since when was ‘parent of toddlers’ a kind of socioeconomic status? (Not that I disagree with you that it disadvantages such people). Also note that the OP said they found the coding questions were mostly easy/easier than they expected so maybe the amount of work required (for older/more experienced candidates) on preparation is not so high? I dunno.
dgb23 4y ago
I think the best way to interview is to just have an experienced, respected worker or two ask some questions, which hopefully leads into a normal conversation about work. Talk about specific problems, nerd out about tech.
- MathMonkeyMan 4y ago
  The counterargument is that this selects people who are similar to that one guy, produces inconsistent results, and doesn't scale up well.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    You do it with multiple people? I find that the people we’ve hired using this method are fairly diverse (but I may be prejudiced).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ergonaught 4y ago

They aren't putting much real thought into it. Beyond the barest basics, 99% of the time the only thing that's genuinely relevant is whether or not the team wants to work with the candidate. Almost nothing else that is relevant is even knowable until after they're actually working. Exceptions only prove the rule. It's a sham but I guess it makes someone feel like they've contributed value somehow.

abrahms 4y ago

It's a selection for socio-economic status. Hiring people who have enough excess time to do this grinding excludes people like parents of young toddlers. So.. you'll probably get a bunch of young single people w/ enough income to not need to have multiple gigs.

dan-robertson 4y ago
Since when was ‘parent of toddlers’ a kind of socioeconomic status? (Not that I disagree with you that it disadvantages such people). Also note that the OP said they found the coding questions were mostly easy/easier than they expected so maybe the amount of work required (for older/more experienced candidates) on preparation is not so high? I dunno.

dgb23 4y ago

I think the best way to interview is to just have an experienced, respected worker or two ask some questions, which hopefully leads into a normal conversation about work. Talk about specific problems, nerd out about tech.

MathMonkeyMan 4y ago
The counterargument is that this selects people who are similar to that one guy, produces inconsistent results, and doesn't scale up well.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  You do it with multiple people? I find that the people we’ve hired using this method are fairly diverse (but I may be prejudiced).