8 ms·

> Pick any topic you want: a hobby you have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. Hopefully there's more guidance than this, because I feel li

> Pick any topic you want: a hobby you have, a book you’ve read, a project you worked on–anything. Hopefully there's more guidance than this, because I feel like I'd freeze up and start "um"ing for five minutes trying to decide the best concept to explain. Maybe this says more about me than the exercise, though...

amcintyre 14y ago
I'd probably just say, "I'm sorry to have wasted your time--I'm not interested in the position after all," and then get up and leave the interview.
dmor 14y ago
You probably would not get hired.
- kevin_morrill 14y ago
  Actually, people that think about this for a while are the ones I like the most. The people that race right in without thinking about it tend to perform the worst. One of the very best candidates I saw actually just wrote their outline on the whiteboard from the start. When I asked them a distracting question they paused a second, looked at the whiteboard, and said "Wait a minute, this will stop us from finishing in 5 minutes. Would you like me to answer this or finish?"
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  You probably would not get hired. Probably not. But what does that say about this particular technique? There's the ability to explain something, and there's the ability to perform under sudden pressure. I would give candidates some period of time (say, 10 minutes, if they needed that long) to select a topic first.
  - king_magic 14y ago
    Well, at the same time, I wouldn't be able to do my job if I didn't have the ability to perform under sudden pressure.
    - vacri 14y ago
      There are different kinds of pressure. I went to lunch with a coworker who was very good at dealing with the pressure of running the shipping pipeline. Someone started having a seizure in front of us. I stepped in and dealt with it (ex-neuro) while she was paralysed and unable to do anything but watch in horror.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    I'm not sure going in to a job interview is 'sudden pressure'. You've often had days or weeks in preparation for that 30-60 minute meeting.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      But it's not a common question, and wildly uncommon questions in an interview can cause even great minds to seize. Interviewing for a tech support job years ago was the most difficult interview I'd ever been in, because the manager didn't stick to the script, so to speak. He threw out random questions, completely unrelated to the job, in a rapid fire manner. Just to see if he could throw you off, to see if he could get you to seize. What is your favorite book? I like the Hitchhiker's Gu-What was the last song playing on your drive over here? It was Lola by The Ki-What color shirt are you wearing, without looking down? You can prepare for an interview. And the interviewer can prepare to surprise you. The sudden pressure is when you're asked an important question that you had no knowledge was going to be asked.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    You've scheduled a half-hour with a candidate (or explain why longer), and you're going to sit in silence for 10 minutes just so s/he can pick a starting point for a 5 minute monolog on any topic? Given the option to talk about anything, I'd be concerned if the candidate couldn't pick something in 10 seconds. Summary of last book read, semantic difference between method calls in C++ vs Objective-C, sewing, recreational ballistics, sociopolitical solutions to poverty, ... something? I could spend the allotted 5 minutes just reviewing topics I could go on for 5 minutes about.
    - nialo 14y ago
      Having a thing that you can talk for 5 minutes about and being able to actually _pick just one thing_ under sudden pressure are very different things. I understand the time pressure issues, but understand that you are also testing this other skill of being able to respond with that questions.
    - nerfhammer 14y ago
      What would you be concerned about? Giving a spontaneous monologue to someone judging you is something many people actually find quite intimidating, even though some others may find it quite natural. It's something they teach in toastmasters or improv classes.
      - ctdonath 14y ago
        It's part of social success (and business, from development to sales, is a social activity). There WILL be times when a moment will occur where you must take a barely-formed thought and run with it, taking someone else from zero to competence, in mere minutes; to not do so is to miss a valuable opportunity. Be it making an unexpected sales pitch, explaining a non-obvious technical solution that just occurred to you during a design meeting, discussing last night's political debate, or describing your hobby to an attractive new acquaintance, success often depends on succinct explanations without preparation. The point of the exercise isn't the content per se, it's the demonstration of ability to present concepts (any concept) clearly, and perhaps convincingly, on short notice. Yes, it can be intimidating. Yes, it's an unplanned speech to a judgmental audience; such is the real world. There's a reason it's taught as a tool for success. I had to figure it out on my own. Survival and success can depend on it. Heck, here I am taking 5 minutes, unexpectedly, trying to explain to you - a judgmental audience - regarding a random topic. If you get my point (convincing notwithstanding) then I pass the test. If a candidate can't do likewise on the topic of his choice, I can't expect as much when the topic is not.
  - mason55 14y ago
    > I would give candidates some period of time (say, 10 minutes, if they needed that long) to select a topic first. It appears you would not be hired because of your lack of reading comprehension. The article clearly states that you have as much time as you want to gather your thoughts and it's a bad sign if a candidate starts right away.
    - bduerst 14y ago
      The article is down, is it not? Edit: NVM, the website is back up.
      - jamesbritt 14y ago
        It was down when I was posting, and I went off a shortened version of the question as summarized in another comment. People late to the discussion may want to consider reading more comments before sniping at earlier posts.
cryptoz 14y ago
That's exactly the point. The ideal candidate presumably has a number of ideas ready to go - the question is very similar to other interview questions and you should already be preparing to talk about your hobbies and interests. The question ensures the candidate can think quickly, pick a topic they know about, and talk about it coherently. If you can't do that, you're probably not a good fit for the team. Therefore, the question is an excellent interview question: it identifies those people who are very passionate about <something>, who are organized enough to explain it on the spot and who can interact well while teaching. Now, to the point about you: you should practice this. Being good at talking about your hobbies and interests in technical detail while explaining clearly is an extremely valuable skill. Learn it.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  I dunno. What if my non-professional hobbies are controversial, or simply derided? I see no reason prospective employers should know that I'm a socialist or enjoy anime conventions, and many of them would almost certainly disapprove of one of those two.
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    Edit: I think I hold exclusively controversial hobbies / books / opinions. I would love this question so much if I ever saw it in an interview. Controversial topics seem to be perfectly suited to this question. Original: The point of an interview is two-fold: the company is looking to find a good match for an open position, and the candidate is looking for work. Neither of you wants to enter an agreement that will turn sour. It is a reasonable position that if you have no interests, or hobbies, or any read books at all that you are comfortable talking about with your employer, that you are likely a poor fit for the company. The topic does not have to be non-professional, either. Pick something that relates to the job if you must. Isn't about half the world's population somewhat socialist? Or fans of anime? Those two examples you picked are, in my opinion, absolutely ideal topics to answer this question with. Why would you be so afraid to talk about them?
    - 14y ago
Lukeas14 14y ago
" Take as much time as you want to think it through, and let me know when you want to start." I think part of the point is that there is no guidance since they're looking for someone who is passionate enough about something to be able to explain it. It sounds like you'll have time to gather your thoughts and it is even seen as a negative if you don't. I'm sure you can come up with something to explain after 5 minutes.
drivingmenuts 14y ago
I would probably spend a lot of time trying to decide which area was appropriately work-safe and which was not. For instance, I would never discuss any of my table-top gaming hobbies unless I knew them for some time. I wouldn't discuss any theatre-related topics, either. I could probably do an hour or two on some technical topics, without causing too many suicides, but I would only consider those if they were relevant to the job I was seeking.
efsavage 14y ago
An important thing to keep in mind is that it's not that you are innately incapable of answering the question, you just may not be able to do so presently, which is why it's a great question. People who are in a rut, or carrying a lot of baggage, (among others) are going to have trouble answering it, and they're probably also going to have trouble adjusting to a new position. Not to say that you are, but it would register as a possibility to an observant interviewer. People who are currently active and engaged will not have trouble coming up with something, and they probably won't have trouble getting their point across in 5 minutes. You might actually have trouble stopping them after 5 minutes because you're engaged with what they're talking about. This is a good sign of someone who wants, and is ready for a new opportunity. That said, I've used slightly constrained versions of this in interviews, like picking up on a side comment/complaint someone made early in the interview. It's a good way to really see someone hunker down and think and express themselves without putting them on the spot like a test. Note that you inserted the idea of the "best concept" on your own, you've made it into a test which implies a right answer, when it isn't. Things like that are warning signs when it comes to adding a new personality to a creative team, and why this style of question is so revealing.
- nerfhammer 14y ago
  You're saying that when someone freezes up in an interview it predicts that they will have trouble adjusting to a new position. Simply put, why should I believe that? Can you convince me that this is not simply like any pseudodiagnostic personality test or tea-leaf reading?
  - efsavage 14y ago
    "pseudodiagnostic personality test" What else do you think an interview is?
debacle 14y ago
It only took me a sec. I was going to explain how to cook the perfect scrambled eggs.
- btilly 14y ago
  Complete with the tip about putting water in them so that the steam puffs up the eggs to a fluffier consistency?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - mratzloff 14y ago
    Actually, the secret ingredient is butter. And love.
    - jrabone 14y ago
      This is universally true.
DigitalJack 14y ago
from the post: "It is amazing how many candidates will not premeditate before diving into this interview question. Once the trigger happy type candidates get going, they don’t have any kind of bulleted list or outline in their head of what they hope to get across. What’s most incredible about this is how accurately it predicts disorganized and non-goal directed behavior on the job. I’ve been over ruled a few times by my manager on a hiring decision, and question was a harbinger of things to come. Conversely, the people that think it through and have a few crystal clear points are amongst the best people I’ve worked with. They are not just easy to communicate with, but get results in their work." You are supposed to take your time and think about it before diving in. Which is a good tactic for problem solving in general.
Jach 14y ago
Supposing I had just finished a Ph.D thesis, that would probably be the first thing to come to mind. The problem, though, is that it would take far longer than 5 minutes to explain. Supposing I had just finished a paper in some scientific field, this would still probably take longer than 5 minutes to explain. Even a basic paper, like "this paper talks about the results from these guys and why they are wrong because they incorrectly used this statistical tool" would take a while. Every good presentation at science conferences has to make an assumption about the audiences' general knowledge and start their presentation at the audience's inference level and connect it to higher levels until they get to the conclusion. If your result is more than one inference level above even other experts in the field, you're not going to be able to explain it to any of them in 5 minutes, let alone this tech-company interviewer whom you know nothing about. Could Andrew Wiles explain his proof to anyone in 5 minutes when it came out? Not even Feynman could explain electricity and magnetism to a layman. That said, I guess explaining a (known) subject like how to cook scrambled eggs is fine. The interviewer learns nothing, but you passed the silly question. If asked this at an interview for a job I really wanted (if I was lukewarm I'd join others in walking out), I'd probably talk about some trivial feature in Clojure (lazy evaluation, say, or more generally the three main purposes of real non-C macros) that Mr. Interviewer probably has never heard of. I have to assume Mr. Interviewer can program but if that assumption is wrong that'd be enough to make me walk out even if I wanted the job.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  >> Supposing I had just finished a Ph.D thesis, that would probably be the first thing to come to mind. The problem, though, is that it would take far longer than 5 minutes to explain. Of course it would take more than 5 minutes to explain fully. Part of what this question is designed to test is whether you can give a 5-minute version of something more complicated. If you can't do that, how are you going to, for example, explain why you want to use technology X instead of Y? Assuming the listener knows less about X and Y than you do (whether they're a manager or a fellow programmer), you have to be able to summarize the differences. This is really an important communication skill.
  - Jach 14y ago

amcintyre 14y ago

I'd probably just say, "I'm sorry to have wasted your time--I'm not interested in the position after all," and then get up and leave the interview.

dmor 14y ago

You probably would not get hired.

kevin_morrill 14y ago
Actually, people that think about this for a while are the ones I like the most. The people that race right in without thinking about it tend to perform the worst. One of the very best candidates I saw actually just wrote their outline on the whiteboard from the start. When I asked them a distracting question they paused a second, looked at the whiteboard, and said "Wait a minute, this will stop us from finishing in 5 minutes. Would you like me to answer this or finish?"
jamesbritt 14y ago
You probably would not get hired. Probably not. But what does that say about this particular technique? There's the ability to explain something, and there's the ability to perform under sudden pressure. I would give candidates some period of time (say, 10 minutes, if they needed that long) to select a topic first.
- king_magic 14y ago
  Well, at the same time, I wouldn't be able to do my job if I didn't have the ability to perform under sudden pressure.
  - vacri 14y ago
    There are different kinds of pressure. I went to lunch with a coworker who was very good at dealing with the pressure of running the shipping pipeline. Someone started having a seizure in front of us. I stepped in and dealt with it (ex-neuro) while she was paralysed and unable to do anything but watch in horror.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  I'm not sure going in to a job interview is 'sudden pressure'. You've often had days or weeks in preparation for that 30-60 minute meeting.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    But it's not a common question, and wildly uncommon questions in an interview can cause even great minds to seize. Interviewing for a tech support job years ago was the most difficult interview I'd ever been in, because the manager didn't stick to the script, so to speak. He threw out random questions, completely unrelated to the job, in a rapid fire manner. Just to see if he could throw you off, to see if he could get you to seize. What is your favorite book? I like the Hitchhiker's Gu-What was the last song playing on your drive over here? It was Lola by The Ki-What color shirt are you wearing, without looking down? You can prepare for an interview. And the interviewer can prepare to surprise you. The sudden pressure is when you're asked an important question that you had no knowledge was going to be asked.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  You've scheduled a half-hour with a candidate (or explain why longer), and you're going to sit in silence for 10 minutes just so s/he can pick a starting point for a 5 minute monolog on any topic? Given the option to talk about anything, I'd be concerned if the candidate couldn't pick something in 10 seconds. Summary of last book read, semantic difference between method calls in C++ vs Objective-C, sewing, recreational ballistics, sociopolitical solutions to poverty, ... something? I could spend the allotted 5 minutes just reviewing topics I could go on for 5 minutes about.
  - nialo 14y ago
    Having a thing that you can talk for 5 minutes about and being able to actually _pick just one thing_ under sudden pressure are very different things. I understand the time pressure issues, but understand that you are also testing this other skill of being able to respond with that questions.
  - nerfhammer 14y ago
    What would you be concerned about? Giving a spontaneous monologue to someone judging you is something many people actually find quite intimidating, even though some others may find it quite natural. It's something they teach in toastmasters or improv classes.
    - ctdonath 14y ago
      It's part of social success (and business, from development to sales, is a social activity). There WILL be times when a moment will occur where you must take a barely-formed thought and run with it, taking someone else from zero to competence, in mere minutes; to not do so is to miss a valuable opportunity. Be it making an unexpected sales pitch, explaining a non-obvious technical solution that just occurred to you during a design meeting, discussing last night's political debate, or describing your hobby to an attractive new acquaintance, success often depends on succinct explanations without preparation. The point of the exercise isn't the content per se, it's the demonstration of ability to present concepts (any concept) clearly, and perhaps convincingly, on short notice. Yes, it can be intimidating. Yes, it's an unplanned speech to a judgmental audience; such is the real world. There's a reason it's taught as a tool for success. I had to figure it out on my own. Survival and success can depend on it. Heck, here I am taking 5 minutes, unexpectedly, trying to explain to you - a judgmental audience - regarding a random topic. If you get my point (convincing notwithstanding) then I pass the test. If a candidate can't do likewise on the topic of his choice, I can't expect as much when the topic is not.
- mason55 14y ago
  > I would give candidates some period of time (say, 10 minutes, if they needed that long) to select a topic first. It appears you would not be hired because of your lack of reading comprehension. The article clearly states that you have as much time as you want to gather your thoughts and it's a bad sign if a candidate starts right away.
  - bduerst 14y ago
    The article is down, is it not? Edit: NVM, the website is back up.
    - jamesbritt 14y ago
      It was down when I was posting, and I went off a shortened version of the question as summarized in another comment. People late to the discussion may want to consider reading more comments before sniping at earlier posts.

cryptoz 14y ago

That's exactly the point. The ideal candidate presumably has a number of ideas ready to go - the question is very similar to other interview questions and you should already be preparing to talk about your hobbies and interests. The question ensures the candidate can think quickly, pick a topic they know about, and talk about it coherently. If you can't do that, you're probably not a good fit for the team. Therefore, the question is an excellent interview question: it identifies those people who are very passionate about <something>, who are organized enough to explain it on the spot and who can interact well while teaching. Now, to the point about you: you should practice this. Being good at talking about your hobbies and interests in technical detail while explaining clearly is an extremely valuable skill. Learn it.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
I dunno. What if my non-professional hobbies are controversial, or simply derided? I see no reason prospective employers should know that I'm a socialist or enjoy anime conventions, and many of them would almost certainly disapprove of one of those two.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  Edit: I think I hold exclusively controversial hobbies / books / opinions. I would love this question so much if I ever saw it in an interview. Controversial topics seem to be perfectly suited to this question. Original: The point of an interview is two-fold: the company is looking to find a good match for an open position, and the candidate is looking for work. Neither of you wants to enter an agreement that will turn sour. It is a reasonable position that if you have no interests, or hobbies, or any read books at all that you are comfortable talking about with your employer, that you are likely a poor fit for the company. The topic does not have to be non-professional, either. Pick something that relates to the job if you must. Isn't about half the world's population somewhat socialist? Or fans of anime? Those two examples you picked are, in my opinion, absolutely ideal topics to answer this question with. Why would you be so afraid to talk about them?
  - 14y ago

Lukeas14 14y ago

" Take as much time as you want to think it through, and let me know when you want to start." I think part of the point is that there is no guidance since they're looking for someone who is passionate enough about something to be able to explain it. It sounds like you'll have time to gather your thoughts and it is even seen as a negative if you don't. I'm sure you can come up with something to explain after 5 minutes.

drivingmenuts 14y ago

I would probably spend a lot of time trying to decide which area was appropriately work-safe and which was not. For instance, I would never discuss any of my table-top gaming hobbies unless I knew them for some time. I wouldn't discuss any theatre-related topics, either. I could probably do an hour or two on some technical topics, without causing too many suicides, but I would only consider those if they were relevant to the job I was seeking.

efsavage 14y ago

An important thing to keep in mind is that it's not that you are innately incapable of answering the question, you just may not be able to do so presently, which is why it's a great question. People who are in a rut, or carrying a lot of baggage, (among others) are going to have trouble answering it, and they're probably also going to have trouble adjusting to a new position. Not to say that you are, but it would register as a possibility to an observant interviewer. People who are currently active and engaged will not have trouble coming up with something, and they probably won't have trouble getting their point across in 5 minutes. You might actually have trouble stopping them after 5 minutes because you're engaged with what they're talking about. This is a good sign of someone who wants, and is ready for a new opportunity. That said, I've used slightly constrained versions of this in interviews, like picking up on a side comment/complaint someone made early in the interview. It's a good way to really see someone hunker down and think and express themselves without putting them on the spot like a test. Note that you inserted the idea of the "best concept" on your own, you've made it into a test which implies a right answer, when it isn't. Things like that are warning signs when it comes to adding a new personality to a creative team, and why this style of question is so revealing.

nerfhammer 14y ago
You're saying that when someone freezes up in an interview it predicts that they will have trouble adjusting to a new position. Simply put, why should I believe that? Can you convince me that this is not simply like any pseudodiagnostic personality test or tea-leaf reading?
- efsavage 14y ago
  "pseudodiagnostic personality test" What else do you think an interview is?

debacle 14y ago

It only took me a sec. I was going to explain how to cook the perfect scrambled eggs.

btilly 14y ago
Complete with the tip about putting water in them so that the steam puffs up the eggs to a fluffier consistency?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mratzloff 14y ago
  Actually, the secret ingredient is butter. And love.
  - jrabone 14y ago
    This is universally true.

DigitalJack 14y ago

from the post: "It is amazing how many candidates will not premeditate before diving into this interview question. Once the trigger happy type candidates get going, they don’t have any kind of bulleted list or outline in their head of what they hope to get across. What’s most incredible about this is how accurately it predicts disorganized and non-goal directed behavior on the job. I’ve been over ruled a few times by my manager on a hiring decision, and question was a harbinger of things to come. Conversely, the people that think it through and have a few crystal clear points are amongst the best people I’ve worked with. They are not just easy to communicate with, but get results in their work." You are supposed to take your time and think about it before diving in. Which is a good tactic for problem solving in general.

Jach 14y ago

Supposing I had just finished a Ph.D thesis, that would probably be the first thing to come to mind. The problem, though, is that it would take far longer than 5 minutes to explain. Supposing I had just finished a paper in some scientific field, this would still probably take longer than 5 minutes to explain. Even a basic paper, like "this paper talks about the results from these guys and why they are wrong because they incorrectly used this statistical tool" would take a while. Every good presentation at science conferences has to make an assumption about the audiences' general knowledge and start their presentation at the audience's inference level and connect it to higher levels until they get to the conclusion. If your result is more than one inference level above even other experts in the field, you're not going to be able to explain it to any of them in 5 minutes, let alone this tech-company interviewer whom you know nothing about. Could Andrew Wiles explain his proof to anyone in 5 minutes when it came out? Not even Feynman could explain electricity and magnetism to a layman. That said, I guess explaining a (known) subject like how to cook scrambled eggs is fine. The interviewer learns nothing, but you passed the silly question. If asked this at an interview for a job I really wanted (if I was lukewarm I'd join others in walking out), I'd probably talk about some trivial feature in Clojure (lazy evaluation, say, or more generally the three main purposes of real non-C macros) that Mr. Interviewer probably has never heard of. I have to assume Mr. Interviewer can program but if that assumption is wrong that'd be enough to make me walk out even if I wanted the job.

nathan_long 14y ago
>> Supposing I had just finished a Ph.D thesis, that would probably be the first thing to come to mind. The problem, though, is that it would take far longer than 5 minutes to explain. Of course it would take more than 5 minutes to explain fully. Part of what this question is designed to test is whether you can give a 5-minute version of something more complicated. If you can't do that, how are you going to, for example, explain why you want to use technology X instead of Y? Assuming the listener knows less about X and Y than you do (whether they're a manager or a fellow programmer), you have to be able to summarize the differences. This is really an important communication skill.
- Jach 14y ago