5 ms·

I have a public disclaimer in my LinkedIn profile intro saying that I refuse to do any algorithmic live coding. They’re top employers and whatnot, but one doesn

I have a public disclaimer in my LinkedIn profile intro saying that I refuse to do any algorithmic live coding. They’re top employers and whatnot, but one doesn’t need to torture themselves with Leetcode to get a good job in this industry

dpe82 3y ago
Interesting; how has that worked for you?
- mihaitodor 3y ago
  It felt quite empowering, actually. I ended up having to point it out to some recruiters who kept pestering me even though I already knew what their employer’s interview process is like. It also helped me avoid wasting time to hop on the first intro call with HR to get details about the next steps. Also, I got a few people reaching out specifically because they resonated with it, which was great!
dekhn 3y ago
Interesting. So if I asked you to open up coderpad.io and write a python function to reverse a string, you'd just absolutely refuse? What would you do otherwise to show me that you're a programmer?
- mihaitodor 3y ago
  I’d refuse, but If the conversation goes in that direction, then I’d probably end the conversation right there, since it’s pretty clear that’s not the kind of role I want to interview for. I managed to accumulate a bit of online presence over the years and I expect my future employer to a) look me up prior to the interview and b) have a direct interest in my Open Source work.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Sure, I'd look you up and scan your github pages. I've dealt with people who set up fake githubs (copying from various places on the web to make it look like they did real work). Can't help you if you only want to interview people who are interested in your open source work... that sounds very limiting.
    - blitzar 3y ago
      I've dealt with people whos whole CV was fake. One of the points of the interview is to sniff this out. Diving into a github and then asking questions about it, in the same way as you would ask about stuff on a CV seems like a massive win for the skilled interviewer.
      - allarm 3y ago
        Normally when I’m interviewing people I don’t go much further than asking about the topics they covered in their resume. If they lied in the resume, it’s an instant no-go. And if their resume is on your desk already, that means that their skill set covers most of the requirements for this position already. Simple enough.
        dekhn 3y ago
        Well, hold on. I see a resume that says "Worked on a complex ML problem, training a model that did blah-and-blah". Sounds great, right? Then when you poke further you find out the person just took an online class that involved git cloning a repo and running scikit-learn on some toy examples without even understanding any of it. Resume inflation is a big thing.
        allarm 3y ago
        I think you misunderstood, I didn’t mean that the resume alone is enough to pass the interview.
        blitzar 3y ago
- michaelt 3y ago
  > What would you do otherwise to show me that you're a programmer? Pretty much every other job in every other industry seems to do OK with education, experience and references. If I want to hire a guy to tile my bathroom I don't need him to slap some tiles onto a whiteboard to get the job - some photos of the last few jobs he's done would be just fine. Is the programming profession really so full of inept frauds? Is our industry so unable to regulate university education that qualifications are so worthless?
  - dekhn 3y ago
    Is the bathroom tiling really a fair comparison? The main reason I hire the way I do is I learned that there are people who have resumes that look like mine (with 30+ years of coding) but they don't actually know how to do any coding, even just "please write out a simple class in python that does nothing". I go out of my way to give every candidate a fair shake and I'm not looking for some fast, set-in-stone rules. Nor am I looking for you to solve any really hard problems. Still it's been depressing just how many coders I interview who can't even explain how a hash table works.
    - codr7 3y ago
      Try again?
- stcroixx 3y ago
  I would definitely leave. Maybe for an intern that would be acceptable, otherwise red flag.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    How can you expect to interview for a job without doing a basic coding interview?
    - dpe82 3y ago
      Maybe by presenting your education and past experiences by discussing the design and interpersonal challenges you worked through? IMO quizzing someone on whether they can solve an artificially tricky algorithm problem on the spot does not correlate very strongly the actual day-to-day work we do as software engineers. At best it's a measure of... whether someone can solve a tricky algorithm problem on the spot. It looks like engineering but it's not really what we do.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        If you read my comments you'll see I'm not advocating tricky algorithm problems. We're talking fizzbuzz-level verification, I'd say about 50% of applicants that I interview can't do fizzbuzz. Do you want me to make it easier? how about reverse a string?
        dpe82 3y ago
        Ah yeah, agreed, a bare minimum "yeah ok you can code" is perfectly reasonable.
xyzelement 3y ago
There was a great story on HN a few days about the concept of "It wasn't for me"[1] - the distinction between something being "bad" vs "just not for me." Your comment made me think of that. If you really perceive algorithmic live coding as torture, then it makes all the sense in the world to avoid it. "It's not for you." But it's important to recognize two things: first that this is subjective. A different person may enjoy something you hate (I don't mind live coding for example) or at least won't consider is bad enough to be called "torture." So just because it's not "for you" doesn't mean it's bad. The second thing is to recognize that there's a cost to being however we are. In this case, the cost of avoiding opportunities that require such interviews is that you may have fewer opportunities and they may be less lucrative on average. It's possible that (a) you are still able to find good-enough opportunities and (b) the downside is worth avoiding the torture. But you can also decide that this cost isn't worth it, and you have some room to shape what is and isn't for you, over time. For example, if the thing that makes this "torture" for you something like anxiety when being watched? If so, probably something like that shows up in other places in your life and maybe valuable to tackle anyway. By no means am I suggesting that you need to do something different than what you're doing, just pointing out that these reactions are subjective, can have downsides, and are under our control to some extent. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452067
- mihaitodor 3y ago
  > the distinction between something being "bad" vs "just not for me." Your comment made me think of that. > If you really perceive algorithmic live coding as torture, then it makes all the sense in the world to avoid it. "It's not for you." I wasn't aware of this concept, but I can assure you that I don't have such a mindset. I tend to enjoy finding difficult challenges and complex topics to dig into which are way outside of my comfort zone. Leetcode practice is different though, and yes, it does feel like torture to me and some other developers who tend to be rather quiet in general. While it's really tempting, I don't think I'm the right person to act as a community voice on this topic, although I do chime in sometimes. When you're just starting this career path, it feels like homework. Heck, it's even exciting to solve problems which are a bit more complicated than whatever you're exposed to in school. However, try to spend several years in a row (8 in my case) trying and failing to pass such interviews (several in-person ones each year) and it will feel like torture. "If you'll spend a little bit more time on Leetcode, surely you'll pass next time..." No thanks! I'm done. The issue is not the lack of training, but the way in which these interviews are conducted by certain people which causes me distress and severe anxiety. I moaned about this before in various HN threads related to interviews and I might bother to blog about it some day. > In this case, the cost of avoiding opportunities that require such interviews is that you may have fewer opportunities and they may be less lucrative on average. Hasn't been my experience, but I'm not looking to maximise my income. I looked for advice on negotiation strategies and whatnot and felt happy with the offers I got. Others might have a different experience in this regard, but I think asking for less money in exchange for a psychologically-safe interview process is nonsense. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for and there are review sites anyway. > For example, if the thing that makes this "torture" for you something like anxiety when being watched? If so, probably something like that shows up in other places in your life and maybe valuable to tackle anyway. I think you're making certain assumptions here. I don't need to "tackle" my perception of what's safe and comfortable. We're all different and that's a good thing.

dpe82 3y ago

Interesting; how has that worked for you?

mihaitodor 3y ago
It felt quite empowering, actually. I ended up having to point it out to some recruiters who kept pestering me even though I already knew what their employer’s interview process is like. It also helped me avoid wasting time to hop on the first intro call with HR to get details about the next steps. Also, I got a few people reaching out specifically because they resonated with it, which was great!

dekhn 3y ago

Interesting. So if I asked you to open up coderpad.io and write a python function to reverse a string, you'd just absolutely refuse? What would you do otherwise to show me that you're a programmer?

mihaitodor 3y ago
I’d refuse, but If the conversation goes in that direction, then I’d probably end the conversation right there, since it’s pretty clear that’s not the kind of role I want to interview for. I managed to accumulate a bit of online presence over the years and I expect my future employer to a) look me up prior to the interview and b) have a direct interest in my Open Source work.
- dekhn 3y ago
  Sure, I'd look you up and scan your github pages. I've dealt with people who set up fake githubs (copying from various places on the web to make it look like they did real work). Can't help you if you only want to interview people who are interested in your open source work... that sounds very limiting.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    I've dealt with people whos whole CV was fake. One of the points of the interview is to sniff this out. Diving into a github and then asking questions about it, in the same way as you would ask about stuff on a CV seems like a massive win for the skilled interviewer.
    - allarm 3y ago
      Normally when I’m interviewing people I don’t go much further than asking about the topics they covered in their resume. If they lied in the resume, it’s an instant no-go. And if their resume is on your desk already, that means that their skill set covers most of the requirements for this position already. Simple enough.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        Well, hold on. I see a resume that says "Worked on a complex ML problem, training a model that did blah-and-blah". Sounds great, right? Then when you poke further you find out the person just took an online class that involved git cloning a repo and running scikit-learn on some toy examples without even understanding any of it. Resume inflation is a big thing.
        allarm 3y ago
        I think you misunderstood, I didn’t mean that the resume alone is enough to pass the interview.
        blitzar 3y ago
michaelt 3y ago
> What would you do otherwise to show me that you're a programmer? Pretty much every other job in every other industry seems to do OK with education, experience and references. If I want to hire a guy to tile my bathroom I don't need him to slap some tiles onto a whiteboard to get the job - some photos of the last few jobs he's done would be just fine. Is the programming profession really so full of inept frauds? Is our industry so unable to regulate university education that qualifications are so worthless?
- dekhn 3y ago
  Is the bathroom tiling really a fair comparison? The main reason I hire the way I do is I learned that there are people who have resumes that look like mine (with 30+ years of coding) but they don't actually know how to do any coding, even just "please write out a simple class in python that does nothing". I go out of my way to give every candidate a fair shake and I'm not looking for some fast, set-in-stone rules. Nor am I looking for you to solve any really hard problems. Still it's been depressing just how many coders I interview who can't even explain how a hash table works.
  - codr7 3y ago
    Try again?
stcroixx 3y ago
I would definitely leave. Maybe for an intern that would be acceptable, otherwise red flag.
- dekhn 3y ago
  How can you expect to interview for a job without doing a basic coding interview?
  - dpe82 3y ago
    Maybe by presenting your education and past experiences by discussing the design and interpersonal challenges you worked through? IMO quizzing someone on whether they can solve an artificially tricky algorithm problem on the spot does not correlate very strongly the actual day-to-day work we do as software engineers. At best it's a measure of... whether someone can solve a tricky algorithm problem on the spot. It looks like engineering but it's not really what we do.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      If you read my comments you'll see I'm not advocating tricky algorithm problems. We're talking fizzbuzz-level verification, I'd say about 50% of applicants that I interview can't do fizzbuzz. Do you want me to make it easier? how about reverse a string?
      - dpe82 3y ago
        Ah yeah, agreed, a bare minimum "yeah ok you can code" is perfectly reasonable.

xyzelement 3y ago

There was a great story on HN a few days about the concept of "It wasn't for me"[1] - the distinction between something being "bad" vs "just not for me." Your comment made me think of that. If you really perceive algorithmic live coding as torture, then it makes all the sense in the world to avoid it. "It's not for you." But it's important to recognize two things: first that this is subjective. A different person may enjoy something you hate (I don't mind live coding for example) or at least won't consider is bad enough to be called "torture." So just because it's not "for you" doesn't mean it's bad. The second thing is to recognize that there's a cost to being however we are. In this case, the cost of avoiding opportunities that require such interviews is that you may have fewer opportunities and they may be less lucrative on average. It's possible that (a) you are still able to find good-enough opportunities and (b) the downside is worth avoiding the torture. But you can also decide that this cost isn't worth it, and you have some room to shape what is and isn't for you, over time. For example, if the thing that makes this "torture" for you something like anxiety when being watched? If so, probably something like that shows up in other places in your life and maybe valuable to tackle anyway. By no means am I suggesting that you need to do something different than what you're doing, just pointing out that these reactions are subjective, can have downsides, and are under our control to some extent. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452067

mihaitodor 3y ago
> the distinction between something being "bad" vs "just not for me." Your comment made me think of that. > If you really perceive algorithmic live coding as torture, then it makes all the sense in the world to avoid it. "It's not for you." I wasn't aware of this concept, but I can assure you that I don't have such a mindset. I tend to enjoy finding difficult challenges and complex topics to dig into which are way outside of my comfort zone. Leetcode practice is different though, and yes, it does feel like torture to me and some other developers who tend to be rather quiet in general. While it's really tempting, I don't think I'm the right person to act as a community voice on this topic, although I do chime in sometimes. When you're just starting this career path, it feels like homework. Heck, it's even exciting to solve problems which are a bit more complicated than whatever you're exposed to in school. However, try to spend several years in a row (8 in my case) trying and failing to pass such interviews (several in-person ones each year) and it will feel like torture. "If you'll spend a little bit more time on Leetcode, surely you'll pass next time..." No thanks! I'm done. The issue is not the lack of training, but the way in which these interviews are conducted by certain people which causes me distress and severe anxiety. I moaned about this before in various HN threads related to interviews and I might bother to blog about it some day. > In this case, the cost of avoiding opportunities that require such interviews is that you may have fewer opportunities and they may be less lucrative on average. Hasn't been my experience, but I'm not looking to maximise my income. I looked for advice on negotiation strategies and whatnot and felt happy with the offers I got. Others might have a different experience in this regard, but I think asking for less money in exchange for a psychologically-safe interview process is nonsense. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for and there are review sites anyway. > For example, if the thing that makes this "torture" for you something like anxiety when being watched? If so, probably something like that shows up in other places in your life and maybe valuable to tackle anyway. I think you're making certain assumptions here. I don't need to "tackle" my perception of what's safe and comfortable. We're all different and that's a good thing.