3 ms·

> I found the interview process very odd. It is far more involved and time consuming of a process than the interviews in other fields. What part is too time co

> I found the interview process very odd. It is far more involved and time consuming of a process than the interviews in other fields. What part is too time consuming? What you describe in the engineering interview sounds like a software engineer interview process as well.

godelski 2y ago
No engineering interview would have you do anything like leetcode problems. No one is going to ask you to solve equations in front of them[0]. They will not give you take home tests or any of that. Doesn't matter if you're at a small startup or a big player like Boeing or Lockheed Martin. The stereotypical software engineering interview is heavily leetcode dependent. It's why leetcode exists and they can charget $150/yr for people to just study it (time that could be spent on learning other things). I mean somewhere like Google you can have 3-6 rounds in the interviewing process. [0] Maybe you'll use a board or paper to draw illustrations and help in your explanations, but you're not going to work out problems. No one is going to give you a physics textbook problem and say "Go".
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  First, when you write "engineering", I suppose that you mean all engineering disciplines except software engineering. If true, how do you compare candidates for material science or civil engineering or aero engineering or mechanical engineering roles? I suppose that you will reply "talk to them" or "look at their experience". But, we have learned through squillions of posts here on HN, it just isn't enough. There are many charlatans that will slip through that type of interview process -- "great talker / good looking". This is the reason for the three-decade-long "arms race" in the technical interview process where programming problems become harder and harder over time. (Side comment: Does anyone think that people who can solve harder leetcode problems have a higher IQ? Controversially, on balance, I believe it to be true, and, thus, I think programming tests are a great way to filter for higher IQ candidates.)
  - godelski 2y ago
    > But, we have learned through squillions of posts here on HN, it just isn't enough. Idk, I can usually tell when someone is an actual engineer vs armchair expert. Actually building stuff requires you to think differently. It's like how someone that just does CAD often fights with machinists because they don't understand the physical limitations. > There are many charlatans that will slip through that type of interview process Of course. But that also happens with leetcode style interviews. You can memorize problems and that doesn't reflect your actual job performance. There's a saying "studying to the test" The real question is the "optimization" question. Considering the time and cost of the interview process, along with the difficulty to remove bad employees, how effective is the interview process. You are optimizing for the best candidate but it's a constrained optimization problem. Otherwise you need infinite resources. So don't ignore the constraints. There's more that I haven't mentioned. > Does anyone think that people who can solve harder leetcode problems have a higher IQ? I know people who believe this. But I'm generally uninterested in anyone who has an obsession with IQ. So far it's been a fairly successful filter
  - joseda-hg 2y ago
    If IQ were a universally appliable measure sure, but knowing how to tackle a specific kind of problem (Specially one not commonly used, and that you have to specifically train for) isn't the ideal measure either LeetCode specifically is famously dissimilar to day to day programming, and therefore (probably) a bad measure for Quality It's like saying that having a degree is better because it proves that you can follow trough It's not necessarily wrong, but it's a tertiary situation that doesn't neccesarily correlate (Even if it might, mostly)

godelski 2y ago

No engineering interview would have you do anything like leetcode problems. No one is going to ask you to solve equations in front of them[0]. They will not give you take home tests or any of that. Doesn't matter if you're at a small startup or a big player like Boeing or Lockheed Martin. The stereotypical software engineering interview is heavily leetcode dependent. It's why leetcode exists and they can charget $150/yr for people to just study it (time that could be spent on learning other things). I mean somewhere like Google you can have 3-6 rounds in the interviewing process. [0] Maybe you'll use a board or paper to draw illustrations and help in your explanations, but you're not going to work out problems. No one is going to give you a physics textbook problem and say "Go".

throwaway2037 2y ago
First, when you write "engineering", I suppose that you mean all engineering disciplines except software engineering. If true, how do you compare candidates for material science or civil engineering or aero engineering or mechanical engineering roles? I suppose that you will reply "talk to them" or "look at their experience". But, we have learned through squillions of posts here on HN, it just isn't enough. There are many charlatans that will slip through that type of interview process -- "great talker / good looking". This is the reason for the three-decade-long "arms race" in the technical interview process where programming problems become harder and harder over time. (Side comment: Does anyone think that people who can solve harder leetcode problems have a higher IQ? Controversially, on balance, I believe it to be true, and, thus, I think programming tests are a great way to filter for higher IQ candidates.)
- godelski 2y ago
  > But, we have learned through squillions of posts here on HN, it just isn't enough. Idk, I can usually tell when someone is an actual engineer vs armchair expert. Actually building stuff requires you to think differently. It's like how someone that just does CAD often fights with machinists because they don't understand the physical limitations. > There are many charlatans that will slip through that type of interview process Of course. But that also happens with leetcode style interviews. You can memorize problems and that doesn't reflect your actual job performance. There's a saying "studying to the test" The real question is the "optimization" question. Considering the time and cost of the interview process, along with the difficulty to remove bad employees, how effective is the interview process. You are optimizing for the best candidate but it's a constrained optimization problem. Otherwise you need infinite resources. So don't ignore the constraints. There's more that I haven't mentioned. > Does anyone think that people who can solve harder leetcode problems have a higher IQ? I know people who believe this. But I'm generally uninterested in anyone who has an obsession with IQ. So far it's been a fairly successful filter
- joseda-hg 2y ago
  If IQ were a universally appliable measure sure, but knowing how to tackle a specific kind of problem (Specially one not commonly used, and that you have to specifically train for) isn't the ideal measure either LeetCode specifically is famously dissimilar to day to day programming, and therefore (probably) a bad measure for Quality It's like saying that having a degree is better because it proves that you can follow trough It's not necessarily wrong, but it's a tertiary situation that doesn't neccesarily correlate (Even if it might, mostly)