4 ms·
The issue is without it how do weed out the bullshitters and frauds? I've done loads of interviews of "engineers" who could barely program at all. A short test
by GardenLetter27 3y ago
The issue is without it how do weed out the bullshitters and frauds?
I've done loads of interviews of "engineers" who could barely program at all. A short test like this can remove them completely and then you just need one discussion interview for the handful of candidates that remain.
- tgv 3y agoThe point is: it isn't exactly short. I do agree that this probably has no value for the company. They could implement this easily themselves. Now, if they would give a different arithmetic operation to each applicant...
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 3y agoIn the 2022 thread it was mentioned the time limit was either 45min or an hour and not three hours, same as any standard coding interview.
- tgv 3y agoThat makes a lot more sense.
- dagw 3y agoA short test like this can remove them completely If your goal is to remove the bullshitters wouldn't a 5-10 minute, slightly harder than FizzBuzz, test also remove them just accurately and save everybody a bunch of time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gardenhedge 3y agoThat's how leetcode style questions started.
- TrackerFF 3y agoI think the question is, why don't other fields put this huge emphasis on the fear of bullshitters and frauds? My take: There's some extreme sampling bias at play. Everyone knows at least one horror story where someone managed to bullshit their way to a position. Now they imagine that this must be a problem, while ignoring the vast majority of devs they've worked with that were legitimate developers. The field of software engineering is also much more personal and opinionated than traditional engineering. This lowers the threshold for what devs. will classify as "frauds" - not because the people they accuse might actually be frauds, but because they are not up to their standards.