4 ms·

> just couldn't even get started at all in any language Let's apply Occam's razor. You have someone who has been programming 8+ years professionally. Maybe th

by jjav 3y ago

> just couldn't even get started at all in any language Let's apply Occam's razor. You have someone who has been programming 8+ years professionally. Maybe they did good work or bad work, we don't know, but we know they've been programming as a profession getting paid to do it for 8+ years. We also all know you can't really go through a week, or even usually a day, of programming without handling something as basic as an array or a list. So, which is actually more likely: a) Someone did 8+ years of programming without ever implementing an array loop or b) They know how to do it, but the test is flawed due to conditions (on a whiteboard in a high stress environment while being criticized). A lot of people with deep expertise in programming are completely incapable of putting on a whiteboard performance under stress. I can never believe the number of interviewers who go "Gotcha!! They don't know how to code despite doing it for years!" instead of considering the simple correct answer is usually (b).

mvdtnz 3y ago
What? The simplest answer by far is c) they haven't been programming for 8 years
- jjav 3y ago
  See above answer. It is very easy to confirm they've held the job they claim on the date range they claim. If they have held a software engineering role for 8 years without getting fired, they absolutely know how to loop over an array.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    Reference checking almost always happens after the interviews. So no, the interviewer would not be expected to know this and should make an effort to confirm the person knows what they claim to know.
    - jjav 3y ago
      Reference checks and employment verification are different things. Reference check is done after the interviews, you ask the candidate for references (past managers and coworkers) and call them up. That takes a fair amount of other people's time, so it only makes sense to do it after you're fairly certain you want to make an offer. Employment verification is simply getting a statement from past employers that this person worked there from date to date and held these titles. That's quick and easy.
  - fargle 3y ago
    Ha! if only that were true... Maybe at a real modern "software" company. But there are plenty of places where 50% of their so-called software engineers couldn't write a simple program from scratch. In fact, as I think about the cases I've seen, it seems to get easier with senior "SWEs". They can exist going to meetings and delegating work until one day they forget themselves and apply at a company that actually expects SWEs to have a basic understanding of programming.
sokoloff 3y ago
> we know they've been programming as a profession getting paid to do it for 8+ years. We don't know that! We know they submitted a resume that says they've been programming for 8+ years; we don't know whether that happened or not. I can't remember exactly what it was that gave me a "this guy is actually full of shit" feeling, but other things in the interview gave me that feeling, so I pivoted the interview to check. On that day and to this day, I have serious doubts that that particular candidate had ever held a professional software job for longer than a probationary period.
- jjav 3y ago
  > We don't know that! Sure we do. Or maybe you didn't that day, but it is easy to find out for sure. While companies (at least in the US) will never give a formal recommendation, they will always issue a statement that such and such person worked for them from date to date and the title(s) they held, if you ask. Sure, if they worked 8 years at Joe's Burger Shack as Senior IT, maybe that's not worth much. But if they worked multiple years with a senior/lead software engineer title at any recognizable company, you know they really did. As I said above we can't know if they did a great job or a mediocre job, but we do know for sure they held that job with that title for so many years and did at least a good enough job to not get fired from a software engineering role. Which in turn means they absolutely know how to write a loop over an array. Because even if they got rated "Just Barely Meets Expectations" for 8 years, that alone is enough to know they can loop over an array. Therefore, if your test indicates they can't do it, it is guaranteed that the test is flawed.
ok_dad 3y ago
I’m autistic. I do well programming but on the spot it’s hard for me to use words well. I sometimes even forget basic words and concepts! My brain does that due to stress in an interview, but day to day I’m fine developing very advanced software and algorithms. I don’t know how many times I have to say this: you’re thinking about the average, neurotypical, able bodied persons when you assume things, but often logic or common sense does not work with disabled or neurodivergent people. Please consider that next time maybe you can provide a second chance somehow with less stress. One thing is, if i have code in front of me, I can explain it pretty well I think. Maybe ask them to prepare samples and walk through them? Edit: this was meant for the grand parent commenter
- sokoloff 3y ago
  In a situation like yours, let the recruiter know your situation ahead of time* and they can help coordinate adjusting the interview process to accommodate a different way that you can demonstrate your capability to succeed in the role. I think it's not reasonable/fair to other candidates to give a literal "second chance somehow", but it's entirely reasonable to adjust the format of the first chance to allow a non-neurotypical candidate a reasonable chance to succeed. * I suspect you probably already know to do this; this is not meant as "advice to you" so much as "here's how it could be made workable and fair if that was the situation".
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it since I know advice like this comes from a place of kindness and caring. I have mixed success with telling people about my autism. Some places will take it as a sign I’ll be a unique problem and ghost me. I’ve learned mostly I have to mask as good as I can and hope it works. People only seem to be kind towards obviously autistic children, older men who are only low level autistic and can pass for “normal“ tend to be seen as dickheads regardless. I’m trying to be better at social stuff so I don’t seem an asshole, but my brain just can’t get some things down! But maybe I should try to bring it up again next time I interview, honestly it’s been years since I’ve had to really interview hard, maybe people are kinder and more understanding today. Lucky for me I was laid off and can get that practice in now!

by jjav 3y ago

mvdtnz 3y ago

What? The simplest answer by far is c) they haven't been programming for 8 years

jjav 3y ago
See above answer. It is very easy to confirm they've held the job they claim on the date range they claim. If they have held a software engineering role for 8 years without getting fired, they absolutely know how to loop over an array.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Reference checking almost always happens after the interviews. So no, the interviewer would not be expected to know this and should make an effort to confirm the person knows what they claim to know.
  - jjav 3y ago
    Reference checks and employment verification are different things. Reference check is done after the interviews, you ask the candidate for references (past managers and coworkers) and call them up. That takes a fair amount of other people's time, so it only makes sense to do it after you're fairly certain you want to make an offer. Employment verification is simply getting a statement from past employers that this person worked there from date to date and held these titles. That's quick and easy.
- fargle 3y ago
  Ha! if only that were true... Maybe at a real modern "software" company. But there are plenty of places where 50% of their so-called software engineers couldn't write a simple program from scratch. In fact, as I think about the cases I've seen, it seems to get easier with senior "SWEs". They can exist going to meetings and delegating work until one day they forget themselves and apply at a company that actually expects SWEs to have a basic understanding of programming.

sokoloff 3y ago

> we know they've been programming as a profession getting paid to do it for 8+ years. We don't know that! We know they submitted a resume that says they've been programming for 8+ years; we don't know whether that happened or not. I can't remember exactly what it was that gave me a "this guy is actually full of shit" feeling, but other things in the interview gave me that feeling, so I pivoted the interview to check. On that day and to this day, I have serious doubts that that particular candidate had ever held a professional software job for longer than a probationary period.

jjav 3y ago
> We don't know that! Sure we do. Or maybe you didn't that day, but it is easy to find out for sure. While companies (at least in the US) will never give a formal recommendation, they will always issue a statement that such and such person worked for them from date to date and the title(s) they held, if you ask. Sure, if they worked 8 years at Joe's Burger Shack as Senior IT, maybe that's not worth much. But if they worked multiple years with a senior/lead software engineer title at any recognizable company, you know they really did. As I said above we can't know if they did a great job or a mediocre job, but we do know for sure they held that job with that title for so many years and did at least a good enough job to not get fired from a software engineering role. Which in turn means they absolutely know how to write a loop over an array. Because even if they got rated "Just Barely Meets Expectations" for 8 years, that alone is enough to know they can loop over an array. Therefore, if your test indicates they can't do it, it is guaranteed that the test is flawed.

ok_dad 3y ago

I’m autistic. I do well programming but on the spot it’s hard for me to use words well. I sometimes even forget basic words and concepts! My brain does that due to stress in an interview, but day to day I’m fine developing very advanced software and algorithms. I don’t know how many times I have to say this: you’re thinking about the average, neurotypical, able bodied persons when you assume things, but often logic or common sense does not work with disabled or neurodivergent people. Please consider that next time maybe you can provide a second chance somehow with less stress. One thing is, if i have code in front of me, I can explain it pretty well I think. Maybe ask them to prepare samples and walk through them? Edit: this was meant for the grand parent commenter

sokoloff 3y ago
In a situation like yours, let the recruiter know your situation ahead of time* and they can help coordinate adjusting the interview process to accommodate a different way that you can demonstrate your capability to succeed in the role. I think it's not reasonable/fair to other candidates to give a literal "second chance somehow", but it's entirely reasonable to adjust the format of the first chance to allow a non-neurotypical candidate a reasonable chance to succeed. * I suspect you probably already know to do this; this is not meant as "advice to you" so much as "here's how it could be made workable and fair if that was the situation".
- ok_dad 3y ago
  Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it since I know advice like this comes from a place of kindness and caring. I have mixed success with telling people about my autism. Some places will take it as a sign I’ll be a unique problem and ghost me. I’ve learned mostly I have to mask as good as I can and hope it works. People only seem to be kind towards obviously autistic children, older men who are only low level autistic and can pass for “normal“ tend to be seen as dickheads regardless. I’m trying to be better at social stuff so I don’t seem an asshole, but my brain just can’t get some things down! But maybe I should try to bring it up again next time I interview, honestly it’s been years since I’ve had to really interview hard, maybe people are kinder and more understanding today. Lucky for me I was laid off and can get that practice in now!