4 ms·

> guarantees that neither the interviewer nor the candidate is wasting the other’s time Yeah, it guarantees that only the interviewer is wasting the candidate'

by zorpner 13y ago

> guarantees that neither the interviewer nor the candidate is wasting the other’s time Yeah, it guarantees that only the interviewer is wasting the candidate's time. If you're hiring off the street I could possibly see some value in FizzBuzz, even though it's going to turn off any actual A player you happen to interview, but if I sent in a portfolio/past project/etc and you FizzBuzz me, I'm walking out. If you distrust a candidate that badly I can't imagine how micromanaged your employees must be. FizzBuzz both saves you time by filtering out incompetent people, and saves actual competent people time by demonstrating that you're not willing to do what it takes to attract great hires. There's no shortcut to real interviews.

dnautics 13y ago
>If you're hiring off the street I could possibly see some value in FizzBuzz, even though it's going to turn off any actual A player you happen to interview I think this is the use case that they're referring to. If you're getting a job referral from someone you trust, you probably shouldn't do it. It's also not that much time. I've never done any professional coding in my entire life, and I could write fizzbuzz in at least three languages in less than 10 minutes. Edit: 10 minutes EACH. I'm not that good.
PeterisP 13y ago
The target audience of FizzBuzz (i.e., those who fail it badly) are indistinguishable from you otherwise, and they outnumber you. They also do send in portfolios and past projects, simply they lie about who did the actual coding in those projects. The exception is when a company is approaching you directly - then it would be insulting. However, if an outside recruiter approaches you, and then hands over to the company... again, you need FizzBuzz or such, because some recruiters are cheaters and will even help hopeless candidates fake their portfolios. Wasting people time hurts - but accidentally hiring someone who'd fail FizzBuzz hurts orders of magnitude more.
michaelt 13y ago
Would you also walk out on your first day if your new boss asked you to do something you considered simple or boring? If so it sounds like FizzBuzz may still serve as a valuable filter!
berntb 13y ago
A lot of the people going to an interview will be incompetent. With other people's projects as references. (Or so they say it is in many places, these days.) If you insist on just working where they have evolved perfect routines to weed out the incompetents before interviewing, you'll miss out on most new places with smart people.
sjm-lbm 13y ago
I FizzBuzz all new developers I hire. Frankly, if you aren't prepared to spend the 5 (at most) minutes it takes to put FizzBuzz down in a language you say that you are an expert in, I'm ok with you walking. Being a productive team member requires trust, and FizzBuzz is a really low standard to start at when attempting to gain trust. I'd be openly suspicious that anyone who can't be bothered to run through FizzBuzz in an interview would be the type to complain that whatever task they are working on (that needs to be done) isn't RealProgramming(tm), and is beneath them.
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  I'm off the market, but if I were asked to do FizzBuzz on a tech intervieew, I would do it, but conditional on the interviewer doing something as idiotic immediately after that. Like write an iterator for a binary tree. Treating the person on the other side of the table is a fake works both ways. Don't underestimate how actually offensive a FizzBuzz question to a qualified developer is.
  - kevinconroy 13y ago
    Think of it this way: they aren't trying to offend you - they're trying to show you that they're keeping all the other idiots who can't do FizzBuzz from joining the team. FizzBuzz is a necessary but not sufficient standard for acceptable technical skill. As a hiring manager, I'm not just amazed by how many people can't do FizzBuzz, but by how many people haven't even heard of it before I ask it.
    - tel 13y ago
      It is an immediate indicator that they're hiring off the street. That might be good---you're very competitive---but it also may mean that hiring is pretty out of touch from dev communities.
    - sjm-lbm 13y ago
      > I'm not just amazed by how many people can't do FizzBuzz, but by how many people haven't even heard of it before I ask it. This is very true. I've often thought of pulling it from the list of questions just because of the visibility that it gets - I mean, I do actually feel, to an extent, embarrassed asking it. Surely anyone who spends 30 whole minutes preparing for a job interview can find it on Google. It still manages to be difficult for some people, though. And, really, that's something that I want to know quickly.
mwfunk 13y ago
FizzBuzz-type questions are for the first remotely technical interview, not once your programming credentials have already been established by the people who are interviewing you. You make it sound like the people interviewing you already know anything about you other than what's on your resume. It filters out a surprising number of people, including those with what appear to be very impressive resumes. I don't know what your definition of "hiring off the street" is, but if it means that the people interviewing you don't know anything about you prior to the interview, then that's pretty much all hiring for any company of any size (i.e., non-startups).

by zorpner 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

>If you're hiring off the street I could possibly see some value in FizzBuzz, even though it's going to turn off any actual A player you happen to interview I think this is the use case that they're referring to. If you're getting a job referral from someone you trust, you probably shouldn't do it. It's also not that much time. I've never done any professional coding in my entire life, and I could write fizzbuzz in at least three languages in less than 10 minutes. Edit: 10 minutes EACH. I'm not that good.

PeterisP 13y ago

The target audience of FizzBuzz (i.e., those who fail it badly) are indistinguishable from you otherwise, and they outnumber you. They also do send in portfolios and past projects, simply they lie about who did the actual coding in those projects. The exception is when a company is approaching you directly - then it would be insulting. However, if an outside recruiter approaches you, and then hands over to the company... again, you need FizzBuzz or such, because some recruiters are cheaters and will even help hopeless candidates fake their portfolios. Wasting people time hurts - but accidentally hiring someone who'd fail FizzBuzz hurts orders of magnitude more.

michaelt 13y ago

Would you also walk out on your first day if your new boss asked you to do something you considered simple or boring? If so it sounds like FizzBuzz may still serve as a valuable filter!

berntb 13y ago

A lot of the people going to an interview will be incompetent. With other people's projects as references. (Or so they say it is in many places, these days.) If you insist on just working where they have evolved perfect routines to weed out the incompetents before interviewing, you'll miss out on most new places with smart people.

sjm-lbm 13y ago

I FizzBuzz all new developers I hire. Frankly, if you aren't prepared to spend the 5 (at most) minutes it takes to put FizzBuzz down in a language you say that you are an expert in, I'm ok with you walking. Being a productive team member requires trust, and FizzBuzz is a really low standard to start at when attempting to gain trust. I'd be openly suspicious that anyone who can't be bothered to run through FizzBuzz in an interview would be the type to complain that whatever task they are working on (that needs to be done) isn't RealProgramming(tm), and is beneath them.

huhtenberg 13y ago
I'm off the market, but if I were asked to do FizzBuzz on a tech intervieew, I would do it, but conditional on the interviewer doing something as idiotic immediately after that. Like write an iterator for a binary tree. Treating the person on the other side of the table is a fake works both ways. Don't underestimate how actually offensive a FizzBuzz question to a qualified developer is.
- kevinconroy 13y ago
  Think of it this way: they aren't trying to offend you - they're trying to show you that they're keeping all the other idiots who can't do FizzBuzz from joining the team. FizzBuzz is a necessary but not sufficient standard for acceptable technical skill. As a hiring manager, I'm not just amazed by how many people can't do FizzBuzz, but by how many people haven't even heard of it before I ask it.
  - tel 13y ago
    It is an immediate indicator that they're hiring off the street. That might be good---you're very competitive---but it also may mean that hiring is pretty out of touch from dev communities.
  - sjm-lbm 13y ago
    > I'm not just amazed by how many people can't do FizzBuzz, but by how many people haven't even heard of it before I ask it. This is very true. I've often thought of pulling it from the list of questions just because of the visibility that it gets - I mean, I do actually feel, to an extent, embarrassed asking it. Surely anyone who spends 30 whole minutes preparing for a job interview can find it on Google. It still manages to be difficult for some people, though. And, really, that's something that I want to know quickly.

mwfunk 13y ago

FizzBuzz-type questions are for the first remotely technical interview, not once your programming credentials have already been established by the people who are interviewing you. You make it sound like the people interviewing you already know anything about you other than what's on your resume. It filters out a surprising number of people, including those with what appear to be very impressive resumes. I don't know what your definition of "hiring off the street" is, but if it means that the people interviewing you don't know anything about you prior to the interview, then that's pretty much all hiring for any company of any size (i.e., non-startups).