7 ms·

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. At multiple interviews I was asked to do code challenges or solve FizzBuzz exercises. I replied something along the lin

by mrcold 12y ago

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. At multiple interviews I was asked to do code challenges or solve FizzBuzz exercises. I replied something along the lines of "I built a commercial product all by myself. Here is the website so you can play with it. Here are some code samples.". And the answer I got always left me speechless: "Well, I don't really know what code you used or if you actually wrote it. So we're just going to fizzbuzz you to make sure you're good. We do this with everybody". This didn't happen just once. It was actually the vast majority. The no-whiteboard approach seems to work only with early-stage startups. Once a company starts settling, say hello to mindless bureaucracy.

smt88 12y ago
I understand that avoiding whiteboard interviews isn't always possible. I'd just suggest OP (and anyone else) try and see if they can.
- notyourwork 12y ago
  All the interviews I have had with major tech companies involved white board exercises except for one. The one that didn't involve a white board focused on discussing prior accomplishments in context of the job to see if there is alignment. I think white boards are great if you use the information you gather from them in the proper way. Engineers solve problems, teams create global companies and change the world. I look at white board sessions to see how you can approach a problem, are you big picture or in the weed detail oriented. When I ask the question what do you focus on? Whether you solve the entire problem or not is not the deciding factor in my opinion. Also, I think with the volume or applicants companies are looking for ways for people to prove they as contributed to their resume achievements and were not a back seat passenger the rest of the team carried along.
valdiorn 12y ago
It's not mindless to make sure a candidate can actually produce some code. You'd be surprised how often people are hopelessly fucking incompetent at actual coding. I'm used to getting these alpha dog; VP-of-whatever from big investment banks (I work in finance), with a laundry list of stuff they have done. Sure ok, good for you, now write up a skeleton class for a linked list in any language of your choice... what's that, you're stuck? You can't remember the keywords for defining a new class in the language you've labeled yourself as an EXPERT in? really?
- mrcold 12y ago
  When you hire a lawyer, do you test him with imaginary laws? If not, why are you doing it with engineers? Engineers solve problems. That's it. They use tools, they try things and they provide solutions. Asking an engineer to solve an imaginary problem on the spot is idiotic. You may have glided through school memorizing stuff and barfing them during exams. But engineers didn't. They understood how things work and why. So when you ask an engineer to write a skeleton class for a linked list, his answer will always be "Why? What problem are you trying to solve?". They don't have it memorized. They build it as they go along, based on the specified requirements. Unlike you, most engineers are friendly people. And not as aggressive. All they want to do is build something or help you do it. You on the other hand seem to have some envy problems. The "AHA! Not so smart now, mr VP of whatever..." attitude is exactly what's wrong with the tech industry. Leave it to a bureaucrat to fuck things up.
  - valdiorn 12y ago
    1. I am an engineer (of the electrical variety) 2. I don't believe in memorizing stuff, I believe in understanding stuff... which is why I'm an engineer. You say: "his answer will always be "Why? What problem are you trying to solve?" Indeed, I WANT people to ask this question. Then I'd like them to suggest why a linked list is or isn't a good candidate for that problem. I will ask them to suggest an alternative method of solving my problem. A good interview is a conversation, but if the candidate has literally no questions to ask, and nothing to provide, and can't even solve the most basic problems that could be memorized, then why would I want him? If a candidate can't come up with a half-decent approach to a problem as simple as FizzBuzz or making a simple data structure container like a linked list; a problem which dwarfs in comparison with what I do on a daily basis at my job, he has no business sitting next to me. You also say: "Asking an engineer to solve an imaginary problem on the spot is idiotic. " Well, that just happens to be my job! My boss comes down, asks me "could you solve this problem for me?" and my answer is "I don't know, but I'll try!" and off you go. so my entire job is about solving unknown problems. Isn't yours? I'm not setting up WordPress sites or chaining together SAP modules (not that there's anything wrong with that, I used to do something like that for several years...), we actually solve problems that don't have known solutions, and the amount of data we work with also poses some unique problems. So our interview process is a miniature, and yes, imaginary, version of what you might be tasked with on any given day. Finally, to clarify, this it the stance I take with people who claim to be "experienced experts". If I'm interviewing an intern or a junior developer, my approach will obviously be very different.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by mrcold 12y ago

smt88 12y ago

I understand that avoiding whiteboard interviews isn't always possible. I'd just suggest OP (and anyone else) try and see if they can.

notyourwork 12y ago
All the interviews I have had with major tech companies involved white board exercises except for one. The one that didn't involve a white board focused on discussing prior accomplishments in context of the job to see if there is alignment. I think white boards are great if you use the information you gather from them in the proper way. Engineers solve problems, teams create global companies and change the world. I look at white board sessions to see how you can approach a problem, are you big picture or in the weed detail oriented. When I ask the question what do you focus on? Whether you solve the entire problem or not is not the deciding factor in my opinion. Also, I think with the volume or applicants companies are looking for ways for people to prove they as contributed to their resume achievements and were not a back seat passenger the rest of the team carried along.

valdiorn 12y ago

It's not mindless to make sure a candidate can actually produce some code. You'd be surprised how often people are hopelessly fucking incompetent at actual coding. I'm used to getting these alpha dog; VP-of-whatever from big investment banks (I work in finance), with a laundry list of stuff they have done. Sure ok, good for you, now write up a skeleton class for a linked list in any language of your choice... what's that, you're stuck? You can't remember the keywords for defining a new class in the language you've labeled yourself as an EXPERT in? really?

mrcold 12y ago
When you hire a lawyer, do you test him with imaginary laws? If not, why are you doing it with engineers? Engineers solve problems. That's it. They use tools, they try things and they provide solutions. Asking an engineer to solve an imaginary problem on the spot is idiotic. You may have glided through school memorizing stuff and barfing them during exams. But engineers didn't. They understood how things work and why. So when you ask an engineer to write a skeleton class for a linked list, his answer will always be "Why? What problem are you trying to solve?". They don't have it memorized. They build it as they go along, based on the specified requirements. Unlike you, most engineers are friendly people. And not as aggressive. All they want to do is build something or help you do it. You on the other hand seem to have some envy problems. The "AHA! Not so smart now, mr VP of whatever..." attitude is exactly what's wrong with the tech industry. Leave it to a bureaucrat to fuck things up.
- valdiorn 12y ago
  1. I am an engineer (of the electrical variety) 2. I don't believe in memorizing stuff, I believe in understanding stuff... which is why I'm an engineer. You say: "his answer will always be "Why? What problem are you trying to solve?" Indeed, I WANT people to ask this question. Then I'd like them to suggest why a linked list is or isn't a good candidate for that problem. I will ask them to suggest an alternative method of solving my problem. A good interview is a conversation, but if the candidate has literally no questions to ask, and nothing to provide, and can't even solve the most basic problems that could be memorized, then why would I want him? If a candidate can't come up with a half-decent approach to a problem as simple as FizzBuzz or making a simple data structure container like a linked list; a problem which dwarfs in comparison with what I do on a daily basis at my job, he has no business sitting next to me. You also say: "Asking an engineer to solve an imaginary problem on the spot is idiotic. " Well, that just happens to be my job! My boss comes down, asks me "could you solve this problem for me?" and my answer is "I don't know, but I'll try!" and off you go. so my entire job is about solving unknown problems. Isn't yours? I'm not setting up WordPress sites or chaining together SAP modules (not that there's anything wrong with that, I used to do something like that for several years...), we actually solve problems that don't have known solutions, and the amount of data we work with also poses some unique problems. So our interview process is a miniature, and yes, imaginary, version of what you might be tasked with on any given day. Finally, to clarify, this it the stance I take with people who claim to be "experienced experts". If I'm interviewing an intern or a junior developer, my approach will obviously be very different.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]