5 ms·

I've interviewed a lot of people (at Microsoft). I don't claim to be good at it, I think that I do OK, but that's why one interviewers opinion should never be t

by pacaro 14y ago

I've interviewed a lot of people (at Microsoft). I don't claim to be good at it, I think that I do OK, but that's why one interviewers opinion should never be the be all. I've definitely encountered people who were clearly good, and equally clearly sucked at interviewing, as an interviewer I had to ask myself the question "why?" I encountered the following cases (among others)... The ill-prepared - This may come down to background, some candidates didn't seem to know that they should prepare for an interview - this can be excusable, but in a world where advice about this is one web-search away is increasingly tough. Usually (but not always) this is a barrier to recommending hire. The chronically nervous - This is always at least 50% my fault. I believe in asymmetric responsibility, as the person with more "power" in the situation, I feel part of my job is to help a candidate past their nerves; if this means my interview is entirely spent putting them at their ease to (potentially) do better with the next person in line, so be it. This has rarely been a barrier to recommending a hire. The arrogant - "I can't believe you asked me such a demeaning coding question when I'm applying for a senior role, clearly my resume tells you all you need to know about my coding chops" - sorry, if I can't pierce this, no hire. The inarticulate - often in this case the code speaks, even if the candidate can't, I usually associate this with nerves, sometimes it is language issues, sometimes stress sensitive speech impediments. I'm pretty sympathetic to this if the code speaks, but communication is part of the role so this is always a judgement call. Can't code on a whiteboard - I'm inclined to call this ill-prepared, you should expect to have to do this coming into the interview, but I do get that this is equivalent and opposite from "inarticulate" - I will take a coherent and detailed description of a solution as being nearly as good as the whiteboard code, but there is a bottom line, you have to be able to show me your ability - sometimes one really insightful question or observation is all that it takes...

seiko55 14y ago
ok, one question: certainly you guys are great coders to be in working in these companies, but is every single person there for sure going to give the best possible answer to these questions every single time if asked? Thanks
- pacaro 14y ago
  In a word: No. Internal interviews can be a real eye-opener.
theorique 14y ago
In more recent interviews, companies I've worked at have had the candidate sit at a laptop and essentially pair program with the interviewer. This avoids avoid that artificial write code as fast as you can with a whiteboard marker situation. Granted, it's not their regular dev setup and it's probably an unfamiliar keyboard and trackpad, but it seems to be better than the alternative.
- what_ever 14y ago
  I interviewed with one of the company where the first two screening round consisted of pair programming (in person, on university campus) on my own laptop. I think that was the best way to conduct interviews. Much better than the phone screens.
mech4bg 14y ago
As an interviewer, it always surprised me how little people would prepare for an interview. For every interview I have done as an interviewee I have studied what I am likely to be asked, what their interview technique is, boned up on the language(s) in question, and tried to think of some interesting questions to ask the interviewer (the last one also includes learning as much as I can about the company and its history). I think these are the basics any interviewee should do - that's just the bare minimum for the big guys. For Google I was pulling out dusty old CS books and revising CS theory and that was still just barely enough preparation. Meanwhile I've given interviews for a C++ position where the candidate hasn't even had a quick brush up on C++ recently. I've had candidates who do C++ as their JOB and not know how to initialize memory, someone describe "polyformic" behavior, and had a good 75% not know at all how virtual functions work. It blows me away.
- malyk 14y ago
  I've never studied for an interview. I guess I have some internal feeling that you should hire me based on what I know...not what I crammed for the night(s) before an interview. Or maybe it's confidence? I don't know. I've been programming professionally for over 10 years. I think I should be able to sit down and work out almost any problem in an interview. I've definitely been to interviews where I ran into issues and didn't get offers, but I've also been to interviews where I ran into problems and did get offers. I guess, in my gut, I feel like studying for an interview is cheating a bit. It might not be the right outlook, but it's something I can't shake.
  - pacaro 14y ago
    I think this is an interesting one, I might make a distinction between studying and preparing. Working through some interview questions as an exercise in intentional practice provides a different type of preparedness from trying to cram CS theory that you don't truly grok. I think that the former helps you manage the unfamiliar interview scenario better, the latter can lead to you digging huge holes when you start talking about something that you don't know much about. There is also a difference between an experienced industry hire - as you say, if you've been doing this for 10 years you can go into an interview and show them a pretty good picture of what they are getting - and a less experienced or campus hire, where what is important might be an expression of potential - the practice helps with letting the interviewer see that, if your interview is the first time you've tried to code at a whiteboard, or solve a problem with someone trying to push you to the edge of your comfort zone, then you are doing yourself a disservice. I have, however, encountered candidates who just didn't know, they didn't go to a top school (or indeed any school), they haven't worked in this environment, they don't have any understanding of what to expect - even the simple web-search that would have warned them requires some level of a priori knowledge - not every candidate has that - I suspect most of these candidates do badly, but just watching how someone learns through a day of interviews tells you something, that higher level bit about learning when in over your head is one of the most valuable.

by pacaro 14y ago

seiko55 14y ago

ok, one question: certainly you guys are great coders to be in working in these companies, but is every single person there for sure going to give the best possible answer to these questions every single time if asked? Thanks

pacaro 14y ago
In a word: No. Internal interviews can be a real eye-opener.

theorique 14y ago

In more recent interviews, companies I've worked at have had the candidate sit at a laptop and essentially pair program with the interviewer. This avoids avoid that artificial write code as fast as you can with a whiteboard marker situation. Granted, it's not their regular dev setup and it's probably an unfamiliar keyboard and trackpad, but it seems to be better than the alternative.

what_ever 14y ago
I interviewed with one of the company where the first two screening round consisted of pair programming (in person, on university campus) on my own laptop. I think that was the best way to conduct interviews. Much better than the phone screens.

mech4bg 14y ago

As an interviewer, it always surprised me how little people would prepare for an interview. For every interview I have done as an interviewee I have studied what I am likely to be asked, what their interview technique is, boned up on the language(s) in question, and tried to think of some interesting questions to ask the interviewer (the last one also includes learning as much as I can about the company and its history). I think these are the basics any interviewee should do - that's just the bare minimum for the big guys. For Google I was pulling out dusty old CS books and revising CS theory and that was still just barely enough preparation. Meanwhile I've given interviews for a C++ position where the candidate hasn't even had a quick brush up on C++ recently. I've had candidates who do C++ as their JOB and not know how to initialize memory, someone describe "polyformic" behavior, and had a good 75% not know at all how virtual functions work. It blows me away.

malyk 14y ago
I've never studied for an interview. I guess I have some internal feeling that you should hire me based on what I know...not what I crammed for the night(s) before an interview. Or maybe it's confidence? I don't know. I've been programming professionally for over 10 years. I think I should be able to sit down and work out almost any problem in an interview. I've definitely been to interviews where I ran into issues and didn't get offers, but I've also been to interviews where I ran into problems and did get offers. I guess, in my gut, I feel like studying for an interview is cheating a bit. It might not be the right outlook, but it's something I can't shake.
- pacaro 14y ago
  I think this is an interesting one, I might make a distinction between studying and preparing. Working through some interview questions as an exercise in intentional practice provides a different type of preparedness from trying to cram CS theory that you don't truly grok. I think that the former helps you manage the unfamiliar interview scenario better, the latter can lead to you digging huge holes when you start talking about something that you don't know much about. There is also a difference between an experienced industry hire - as you say, if you've been doing this for 10 years you can go into an interview and show them a pretty good picture of what they are getting - and a less experienced or campus hire, where what is important might be an expression of potential - the practice helps with letting the interviewer see that, if your interview is the first time you've tried to code at a whiteboard, or solve a problem with someone trying to push you to the edge of your comfort zone, then you are doing yourself a disservice. I have, however, encountered candidates who just didn't know, they didn't go to a top school (or indeed any school), they haven't worked in this environment, they don't have any understanding of what to expect - even the simple web-search that would have warned them requires some level of a priori knowledge - not every candidate has that - I suspect most of these candidates do badly, but just watching how someone learns through a day of interviews tells you something, that higher level bit about learning when in over your head is one of the most valuable.