4 ms·

I think there's some truth to this. Companies should weigh past work more heavily, and let candidates do real work with the team as part of the interview proces

I think there's some truth to this. Companies should weigh past work more heavily, and let candidates do real work with the team as part of the interview process, IMO. That being said, I think these whiteboard problems can be useful when you think of them as "trying out what it feels like to brainstorm with the candidate about how to solve a problem." That's how I think of them. There are plenty of people I just can't get on the same page with when trying to whiteboard together (different communication styles/speeds/whatever), and it's helpful to know that ahead of time.

bulatb 13y ago
The problem is these interviews aren't brainstorms. They're exams, where you don't even know the range of topics in advance. No matter much interviewers claim it's just a conversation, the reality is they have standard questions with specific optimal solutions, chosen for their ease of grading rather than their relevance or what they actually reveal. When no one knows the answer and the object of the meeting is to find it, it might really be a brainstorm. When the interviewer knows the answer and expects the candidate to get it, where a real discussion isn't possible because suggesting things that aren't The Answer (or asking stupid questions) could significantly hurt your chances, it's a test.
- xsmasher 13y ago
  There exist too-clever "gotcha" questions that are obvious if you've seen them before, and near impossible if you haven't. Those are terrible, and they fall to your "They're exams" criticism. Other questions have layers, like an onion. Those are the good questions. They should divide the candidates into STRATA. I think the stock question is one of those. Strata 1: Everyone should be able to produce a brute-force, inefficient solution, and avoid the obvious+wrong solution. If not, they should have been weeded earlier by your phone screening. Strata 2: Better candidates should be able to produce a more efficient and readable solution, sometimes with prodding. Some candidates never get here, even with prodding ("Have you considered x,y,z?") Strata 3: Candidate skips straight to the correct solution, sometimes provides more than was required ("You shouldn't store data as keys; you probably want to return the time and buy/sell prices, not just the profit".) Interviewer needs to prod and ask questions here ("what's wrong with solution x? why did you do y? What if I want a list of possible trades?") to make sure it's not a memorized answer. You shouldn't expect that, in ten minutes, your candidate can come up with the optimal solution that took you three hours. But they should be able to understand and recognize that solution if you lead them to it. Anyone using these questions as pass/fail is doing it wrong, but that's not the question's fault.

bulatb 13y ago

The problem is these interviews aren't brainstorms. They're exams, where you don't even know the range of topics in advance. No matter much interviewers claim it's just a conversation, the reality is they have standard questions with specific optimal solutions, chosen for their ease of grading rather than their relevance or what they actually reveal. When no one knows the answer and the object of the meeting is to find it, it might really be a brainstorm. When the interviewer knows the answer and expects the candidate to get it, where a real discussion isn't possible because suggesting things that aren't The Answer (or asking stupid questions) could significantly hurt your chances, it's a test.

xsmasher 13y ago
There exist too-clever "gotcha" questions that are obvious if you've seen them before, and near impossible if you haven't. Those are terrible, and they fall to your "They're exams" criticism. Other questions have layers, like an onion. Those are the good questions. They should divide the candidates into STRATA. I think the stock question is one of those. Strata 1: Everyone should be able to produce a brute-force, inefficient solution, and avoid the obvious+wrong solution. If not, they should have been weeded earlier by your phone screening. Strata 2: Better candidates should be able to produce a more efficient and readable solution, sometimes with prodding. Some candidates never get here, even with prodding ("Have you considered x,y,z?") Strata 3: Candidate skips straight to the correct solution, sometimes provides more than was required ("You shouldn't store data as keys; you probably want to return the time and buy/sell prices, not just the profit".) Interviewer needs to prod and ask questions here ("what's wrong with solution x? why did you do y? What if I want a list of possible trades?") to make sure it's not a memorized answer. You shouldn't expect that, in ten minutes, your candidate can come up with the optimal solution that took you three hours. But they should be able to understand and recognize that solution if you lead them to it. Anyone using these questions as pass/fail is doing it wrong, but that's not the question's fault.