3 ms·

> I used to ask ‘tell me one of the SOLID principle you strongly agree or disagree with’ but I had to stop because it ended up with the interviewee listing/des

> I used to ask ‘tell me one of the SOLID principle you strongly agree or disagree with’ but I had to stop because it ended up with the interviewee listing/describing the SOLID principles rather than critiquing them. It sounds to me like this is a good question that you should keep asking. You're typically hiring one person out of a large pool. If only one out of 15 interviewees does well on a question, that's a helpful signal.

Fuzzwah 3y ago
As a good test for how important a signal this is, the interviewer should ask it to a few of their top performers.
- lubujackson 3y ago
  This is the gem comment in this thread. If all these interviewers are such well-rounded and knowledgeable engineers, how much testing and effort do they put into their questions? Or is this just "cowboy interviewing" based on pet questions that scratch their own itch?
mytailorisrich 3y ago
Agreed. Anyone can learn acronyms, principles, etc by heart and repeat in an interview. The real useful questions are about reasons for them, purposes, limitations, etc. I.e. to test the candidate's critical thinking and experience.
dan-robertson 3y ago
Just because a fraction of people can answer something to your satisfaction, it doesn’t mean it’s a good signal. Eg I don’t think baseball trivia would be a great way to narrow down candidates. That said, if you need to narrow down the pool and you like the question then go for it. I think it’s important to keep your ultimate goal in mind, which is probably: - find the desired number of acceptably competent candidates - who are likely to accept your offers - without needing to make very large offers - or spending a lot on finding and interviewing unsuitable candidates - while complying with any local laws These can lead to a bunch of different things you see in hiring processes (eg you prefer referrals because of 2 and 4, and candidates may be rejected for being overqualified for reasons 2, 3, and 4) As a candidate, this often feels very frustrating: you would rather companies follow processes that are maximally fair where so long as you demonstrate sufficient merit, you get an offer. Or even better, processes that do a good job of uncovering the value you bring. I guess one can try to look at the hiring process through this lens to not take rejections so personally, and one can hope that different companies will have different processes (to hopefully reduce how much they compete with each other for the same subset of candidates) though I don’t think they end up being very different in practice.
- ryukoposting 3y ago
  You're absolutely right - my remark was made with consideration of the specific question at hand. Instead of asking them to regurgitate an acronym, the given question asks the interviewee to provide analysis of an engineering technique. The question gauges an interviewee's reading/verbal comprehension, while also giving the interviewee the opportunity to display analytical thinking skills and an intimate understanding of the topic.

Fuzzwah 3y ago

As a good test for how important a signal this is, the interviewer should ask it to a few of their top performers.

lubujackson 3y ago
This is the gem comment in this thread. If all these interviewers are such well-rounded and knowledgeable engineers, how much testing and effort do they put into their questions? Or is this just "cowboy interviewing" based on pet questions that scratch their own itch?

mytailorisrich 3y ago

Agreed. Anyone can learn acronyms, principles, etc by heart and repeat in an interview. The real useful questions are about reasons for them, purposes, limitations, etc. I.e. to test the candidate's critical thinking and experience.

dan-robertson 3y ago

Just because a fraction of people can answer something to your satisfaction, it doesn’t mean it’s a good signal. Eg I don’t think baseball trivia would be a great way to narrow down candidates. That said, if you need to narrow down the pool and you like the question then go for it. I think it’s important to keep your ultimate goal in mind, which is probably: - find the desired number of acceptably competent candidates - who are likely to accept your offers - without needing to make very large offers - or spending a lot on finding and interviewing unsuitable candidates - while complying with any local laws These can lead to a bunch of different things you see in hiring processes (eg you prefer referrals because of 2 and 4, and candidates may be rejected for being overqualified for reasons 2, 3, and 4) As a candidate, this often feels very frustrating: you would rather companies follow processes that are maximally fair where so long as you demonstrate sufficient merit, you get an offer. Or even better, processes that do a good job of uncovering the value you bring. I guess one can try to look at the hiring process through this lens to not take rejections so personally, and one can hope that different companies will have different processes (to hopefully reduce how much they compete with each other for the same subset of candidates) though I don’t think they end up being very different in practice.

ryukoposting 3y ago
You're absolutely right - my remark was made with consideration of the specific question at hand. Instead of asking them to regurgitate an acronym, the given question asks the interviewee to provide analysis of an engineering technique. The question gauges an interviewee's reading/verbal comprehension, while also giving the interviewee the opportunity to display analytical thinking skills and an intimate understanding of the topic.