4 ms·

> And, importantly, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if no cheating was allowed and a different person took the job, that they would on average be any

by nverno 3y ago

> And, importantly, there's no reason whatsoever to think that if no cheating was allowed and a different person took the job, that they would on average be any better. I think there is plenty of reason to think people who actually know the stuff instead of cheating would be better on average. It's a signal that they were smart enough and motivated enough to learn the material (basic algorithms/coding skills in this case)- both traits that would probably make them better on average at the job. Being a good cheater is a useful skill that probably also helps people on average- but I doubt it's nearly as useful an indicator of future success as being good at the skills necessary to do well on interview questions (w/o cheating).

kspacewalk2 3y ago
If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place? Presumably I'm hiring an expensive problem-solver with good judgment here, accumulation of past knowledge beyond some basic level of competence is useful, but secondary. Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself. The best interview that I've encountered is the long interview. I hire you for four months as a co-op, see what you can do, and we go from there. Impractical in many/most settings, obviously.
- nverno 3y ago
  > If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place? But this is usually not possible- it's contingent on other people having already solved and posted solutions online for some question worded nearly the same. Much of the knowledge behind interview questions applies to all sorts of programming problems where the solution won't be available to copy. A knowledgeable programmer would know quickly that some problem is best approached by dfs or bfs, while the cheater may not. > Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself I agree, but this will always be a hard process. LC problems are like IQ test or SATs, they work fairly well most of the time, but probably better to weed out the particularly weak candidates than determine how good people truly are.

by nverno 3y ago

kspacewalk2 3y ago

If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place? Presumably I'm hiring an expensive problem-solver with good judgment here, accumulation of past knowledge beyond some basic level of competence is useful, but secondary. Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself. The best interview that I've encountered is the long interview. I hire you for four months as a co-op, see what you can do, and we go from there. Impractical in many/most settings, obviously.

nverno 3y ago
> If someone can just look it up, digest information in X minutes and come up with the same answer, then why does it matter that they didn't memorize it in the first place? But this is usually not possible- it's contingent on other people having already solved and posted solutions online for some question worded nearly the same. Much of the knowledge behind interview questions applies to all sorts of programming problems where the solution won't be available to copy. A knowledgeable programmer would know quickly that some problem is best approached by dfs or bfs, while the cheater may not. > Fundamentally, the issue is the interviewing/selection process itself I agree, but this will always be a hard process. LC problems are like IQ test or SATs, they work fairly well most of the time, but probably better to weed out the particularly weak candidates than determine how good people truly are.