4 ms·

I still completely disagree with you. You are misunderstanding the point of the question, and probably missing the importance of being able to formulate an opi

I still completely disagree with you. You are misunderstanding the point of the question, and probably missing the importance of being able to formulate an opinionated argument about development and present it to a team. That is the point of the question. You should not be apples-apples comparing candidates anyway. Everyone is different, and it is a collection of skills that you need to be a developer. Candidate A may be a person who isn't as quick with coding, but they can quickly architect a solution in their mind and formulate an opinionated argument about why it is superior. Candidate B may be an incredible coder, but unable to explain their methodology, or architect a solution that is generic and re-usable. Both of these candidates can be an asset to the team in different ways. I find a lot of developers, the "JUST LET ME CODE" types, really don't understand the communication skills needed to develop an application with a large group of people. This question helps find people that will be better in that group situation, regardless of how strong their coding skills may be...because coding is only a portion of the job, in the real world. Edit: I also pointed out in my reply, that an interviewer who takes a subjective bias when assessing the answer to this question is doing it wrong.

tptacek 12y ago
You believe that you shouldn't try to hire based on apples-to-apples comparisons of developers. I not only don't agree with you, but I run a (relative to startups) high-volume recruiting practice premised on that belief. We're not going to agree, and that's fine. In the 12 years of my career prior to discovering objective, work-sample, standardized, data-driven hiring, I hired exactly the way you're advocating. I sought out questions like the one you're advocating for. My favorite question from that time: "if you had to put together a libyou.a that you take from project to project, what would be in that library?" I found it to be a great way to start a conversation with a candidate to get inside of their head, and also liked the fact that it quickly gave me a signal as to whether the candidate had actually done the kind of work we did in our shop. As it turns out, the ability to project a signal as to whether a candidate has actually done the kind of work we do in our firm is not actually useful. What's useful is: "if the candidate is put in a reasonable position to try, can they actually perform the tasks the role requires". Surprisingly --- in fact, shockingly --- I've found zero correlation between the capacity to signal ability and the capacity to demonstrate ability. ZERO. Our best performers six months in, as often as not, interview terribly on "signalling" terms, and were hired because work-sample testing overrode those concerns.
watwut 12y ago
It is just a nitpick, but opinionated argument about superiority of a solution that person just quickly architected is not a good thing. Opinionated argument about a solution that the person through out and really considered advantages/disadvantages is a good thing. Opinionated argument about half through unprepared ideas are fun, but waste of time when done during meetings.

tptacek 12y ago

You believe that you shouldn't try to hire based on apples-to-apples comparisons of developers. I not only don't agree with you, but I run a (relative to startups) high-volume recruiting practice premised on that belief. We're not going to agree, and that's fine. In the 12 years of my career prior to discovering objective, work-sample, standardized, data-driven hiring, I hired exactly the way you're advocating. I sought out questions like the one you're advocating for. My favorite question from that time: "if you had to put together a libyou.a that you take from project to project, what would be in that library?" I found it to be a great way to start a conversation with a candidate to get inside of their head, and also liked the fact that it quickly gave me a signal as to whether the candidate had actually done the kind of work we did in our shop. As it turns out, the ability to project a signal as to whether a candidate has actually done the kind of work we do in our firm is not actually useful. What's useful is: "if the candidate is put in a reasonable position to try, can they actually perform the tasks the role requires". Surprisingly --- in fact, shockingly --- I've found zero correlation between the capacity to signal ability and the capacity to demonstrate ability. ZERO. Our best performers six months in, as often as not, interview terribly on "signalling" terms, and were hired because work-sample testing overrode those concerns.

watwut 12y ago

It is just a nitpick, but opinionated argument about superiority of a solution that person just quickly architected is not a good thing. Opinionated argument about a solution that the person through out and really considered advantages/disadvantages is a good thing. Opinionated argument about half through unprepared ideas are fun, but waste of time when done during meetings.