4 ms·

Interviews are as much a chance for a candidate to disqualify the interviewer/company because they asked stupid questions Is this really true? Generally candid

Interviews are as much a chance for a candidate to disqualify the interviewer/company because they asked stupid questions Is this really true? Generally candidates know far more about the company than the company knows about the candidates. I think any notion that it's a meeting of equal interests is self-empowered fantasy. "as they are for the interviewer to ask stupid questions.* I ask "stupid" questions of candidates. One of the reasons I ask those questions is, quite honestly, because I want to exclude those people who have an attitude about "stupid" questions. Those who can't professionally humor simple questions are seldom the people anyone wants to work with. And for the record the people who are really in a position to essentially set the terms we don't even interview (beyond meeting with senior management to give them the sales pitch).

mrweasel 14y ago
Regarding the "Chance for a candidate to disqualify the company", yes you can know a lot about the company, but often you don't know how they work internally. An interview can give you a good idea of how the company works and that not something you really have chance of known, unless you know people how are or have been in the company. I've never been to a job interview outside Denmark, and the bus with golf ball type questions isn't something I've ever encountered. What I have learned however is that if the interview is conducted by the HR department, something is wrong. HR can be present, but for developer interviews it should be your future boss and technical personal doing the interview.
malandrew 14y ago
Are you sure you aren't conflating "having an attitude about 'stupid' questions" with "simply rejecting 'stupid' questions"? It's possible to reject stupid questions in a way that is diplomatic and non-douchy. I'd think that being tolerant of accepting 'stupid' questions is as undesirable as having an attitude about them. The former demonstrates unproductive compliance, while the latter demonstrates unproductive social behavior. Surely there must be an optimum point where someone can behave in a way that demonstrates productive non-compliance, no?
- huggyface 14y ago
  It's possible to reject stupid questions in a way that is diplomatic and non-douchy. Absolutely, and that's how professionals deal with other professionals. The comment that I responded to demonstrated significant attitude about what they called stupid questions (which are the Fermi problems). An interview is not a skill discovery session -- ideally your resume and online presence (e.g. github projects) has demonstrated that, along with, if necessary, a practical test. An interview is getting to know how you think, how you communicate, how you deal with people, how you approach problems, etc. It is astonishing how many people don't understand this, and thus don't understand questions that aren't an autism-level focus on a person's specific skill gamut. Can you tell me what you believe your biggest weakness is?
  - ohyes 14y ago
    I don't have an attitude about answering 'stupid' questions if they are asked in an honest manner. I have answered and asked many 'stupid' questions in my lifetime and will answer/ask many more. Asking stupid questions is a part of learning. You are reading far too much into my use of the word stupid. My point is that if I agree to an interview, I would much rather have an interesting technical discussion with one of your engineers than be asked brain-teasers by someone from HR. I would politely answer the question and would not dismiss it. However I find the practice off putting in general. Fermi problems are a game that give you an estimate of the person's thought process. Another way to gain an estimate of a person's thought process is to engage that person in intelligent conversation on just about any subject. I much prefer intelligent conversation, as it can actually be quite pleasant. My biggest weakness? The interviewer clearly is interested in something contrived and job related. But what are they looking for? Do I spin it and say how "my biggest strength can sometimes be a weakness when..." Am I honest and tell them what my actual job-related biggest weakness is? If I just straight up tell you something like "I'm incredibly disorganized and never show up when you tell me to," I'm clearly not going to get the job. You don't get any points for honesty. Do you want something where the interviewee has spun his biggest strength? It is dishonest but a better answer. Asking my biggest weakness is really just you asking me 'What do I want to hear.' Another game... I don't know you very well; how could I possibly answer it? So there it is, my biggest weakness is reading your mind. :) Or maybe my biggest weakness is over-analysis. In what context of the words 'biggest' and 'weakness' would you like this question answered? Size/importance/grandeur/impact? Mental/medical/social/skill competency? Literally speaking, it would probably be the oxygen supply on earth. It takes up quite a lot of volume, and if it is removed I'm a goner. edit: biggest weakness... grammar, punctuation.

mrweasel 14y ago

Regarding the "Chance for a candidate to disqualify the company", yes you can know a lot about the company, but often you don't know how they work internally. An interview can give you a good idea of how the company works and that not something you really have chance of known, unless you know people how are or have been in the company. I've never been to a job interview outside Denmark, and the bus with golf ball type questions isn't something I've ever encountered. What I have learned however is that if the interview is conducted by the HR department, something is wrong. HR can be present, but for developer interviews it should be your future boss and technical personal doing the interview.

malandrew 14y ago

Are you sure you aren't conflating "having an attitude about 'stupid' questions" with "simply rejecting 'stupid' questions"? It's possible to reject stupid questions in a way that is diplomatic and non-douchy. I'd think that being tolerant of accepting 'stupid' questions is as undesirable as having an attitude about them. The former demonstrates unproductive compliance, while the latter demonstrates unproductive social behavior. Surely there must be an optimum point where someone can behave in a way that demonstrates productive non-compliance, no?

huggyface 14y ago
It's possible to reject stupid questions in a way that is diplomatic and non-douchy. Absolutely, and that's how professionals deal with other professionals. The comment that I responded to demonstrated significant attitude about what they called stupid questions (which are the Fermi problems). An interview is not a skill discovery session -- ideally your resume and online presence (e.g. github projects) has demonstrated that, along with, if necessary, a practical test. An interview is getting to know how you think, how you communicate, how you deal with people, how you approach problems, etc. It is astonishing how many people don't understand this, and thus don't understand questions that aren't an autism-level focus on a person's specific skill gamut. Can you tell me what you believe your biggest weakness is?
- ohyes 14y ago
  I don't have an attitude about answering 'stupid' questions if they are asked in an honest manner. I have answered and asked many 'stupid' questions in my lifetime and will answer/ask many more. Asking stupid questions is a part of learning. You are reading far too much into my use of the word stupid. My point is that if I agree to an interview, I would much rather have an interesting technical discussion with one of your engineers than be asked brain-teasers by someone from HR. I would politely answer the question and would not dismiss it. However I find the practice off putting in general. Fermi problems are a game that give you an estimate of the person's thought process. Another way to gain an estimate of a person's thought process is to engage that person in intelligent conversation on just about any subject. I much prefer intelligent conversation, as it can actually be quite pleasant. My biggest weakness? The interviewer clearly is interested in something contrived and job related. But what are they looking for? Do I spin it and say how "my biggest strength can sometimes be a weakness when..." Am I honest and tell them what my actual job-related biggest weakness is? If I just straight up tell you something like "I'm incredibly disorganized and never show up when you tell me to," I'm clearly not going to get the job. You don't get any points for honesty. Do you want something where the interviewee has spun his biggest strength? It is dishonest but a better answer. Asking my biggest weakness is really just you asking me 'What do I want to hear.' Another game... I don't know you very well; how could I possibly answer it? So there it is, my biggest weakness is reading your mind. :) Or maybe my biggest weakness is over-analysis. In what context of the words 'biggest' and 'weakness' would you like this question answered? Size/importance/grandeur/impact? Mental/medical/social/skill competency? Literally speaking, it would probably be the oxygen supply on earth. It takes up quite a lot of volume, and if it is removed I'm a goner. edit: biggest weakness... grammar, punctuation.