3 ms·

Let's think about this like an engineer solving a problem. What we have here is a population (interviewees) that we want to sample according to some metric. We

by jkyle 11y ago

Let's think about this like an engineer solving a problem. What we have here is a population (interviewees) that we want to sample according to some metric. We want to apply some series of filters that limit the sample to only candidates that exceed some threshold of suitability for a task. After forming a model for that filter, we apply it and begin to suspect that we're not extracting the optimal subset of interviewees. In any other scenario, the answer to this lack of fit would be to change the sampling method/filters. But for some reason, unique to the interview process, interviewers decide the solution is for the population of interest to "study" at passing our filters. In other words, we find we have a bad measuring instrument and instead of designing a new instrument, the reaction is to insist that the samples work harder to fit the bad measurements. I'd like to propose if qualified candidates have to study for your "test", you're test isn't very good at finding qualified candidates. By the time a candidate makes it to an interview, initial screeners should have eliminated those that haven't proven their ability to study for a test when given the parameters of that test in advance. Try coming up with better questions to determine if they're a good fit for your company. ... Now excuse me while I go re memorize all the big-O worst/best case performance for algorithms from my first year of undergraduate instead of just deriving it out or looking it up in a table like we all know we do in reality. (unless we use it every day) edit Oh, and the tool looks really fun and will probably help in said interviews. ;)

anshumansingh26 11y ago
Hey, Anshuman here. Just came across this. Can't agree with you more. I'd change the process if it was up to me. However, building a new process, I guess, will take a lot of time with the same set of experiments happening again. Its highly unlikely that it will be adopted immediately everywhere else. This is more of a quick fix to the process till something better comes along. There are a lot of things that are broken here. The huge gap between the university curriculum and the real world industry needs shouldn't exist in the first place. Which is what our longer term vision is. Watch out for more :)
- jkyle 11y ago
  I hear you. It just sparked a pet peeve of mine as an interviewer and employee. ;) I suppose it's easy pointing out flaws without offering solutions. I think one possible solution would be a system where potential new hires were given real world problems under real world working conditions. Today, people often study for months to "pass" the interview tests. Generally taking up many hours of multiple interviewers time. Instead, if a potential candidate were given a sufficiently unique and difficult problem and a time window to complete it representative of the desired work output it would provide a much better idea of what kind of employee they would be. - Did they complete the job earlier than the given time, but turned in sloppy or a less than ideal solution? - Did they eat up the entire allotted time, but turn in truly stellar work? - Best of all, turned in early, unique solution with good, commented, test driven code and asking for another problem? And really who cares if they had to review their algorithms or operating systems book to do it? That's why we keep them on our shelf. I'd say for sufficiently hard, and original, problems I spend 80% of my time with my nose in a book or reading papers and 20% engineering a solution....unless I'm doing it day in and day out. After that, it's mostly about personality and team fit. Bring them in to do some white booarding (full access to resources) and work with the team, make sure they aren't smoke and mirrors. Then make a call. edit For example, take your ops guy. Best interview I've ever seen for ops is to throw them in a broken sandbox environment, give them root & tell them to fix it, and walk away.
- jkyle 11y ago
  > The huge gap between the university curriculum and the real world industry I'm not sure I agree with this though. "Real world" is very different from company to company, domain to domain. It also changes dramatically in just the few years required to attain a degree. I've always viewed universities as providing the foundation and discipline needed to adapt to any of those situations rather preparing or trying to guess at the needs of any particular one.

by jkyle 11y ago

anshumansingh26 11y ago

Hey, Anshuman here. Just came across this. Can't agree with you more. I'd change the process if it was up to me. However, building a new process, I guess, will take a lot of time with the same set of experiments happening again. Its highly unlikely that it will be adopted immediately everywhere else. This is more of a quick fix to the process till something better comes along. There are a lot of things that are broken here. The huge gap between the university curriculum and the real world industry needs shouldn't exist in the first place. Which is what our longer term vision is. Watch out for more :)

jkyle 11y ago
I hear you. It just sparked a pet peeve of mine as an interviewer and employee. ;) I suppose it's easy pointing out flaws without offering solutions. I think one possible solution would be a system where potential new hires were given real world problems under real world working conditions. Today, people often study for months to "pass" the interview tests. Generally taking up many hours of multiple interviewers time. Instead, if a potential candidate were given a sufficiently unique and difficult problem and a time window to complete it representative of the desired work output it would provide a much better idea of what kind of employee they would be. - Did they complete the job earlier than the given time, but turned in sloppy or a less than ideal solution? - Did they eat up the entire allotted time, but turn in truly stellar work? - Best of all, turned in early, unique solution with good, commented, test driven code and asking for another problem? And really who cares if they had to review their algorithms or operating systems book to do it? That's why we keep them on our shelf. I'd say for sufficiently hard, and original, problems I spend 80% of my time with my nose in a book or reading papers and 20% engineering a solution....unless I'm doing it day in and day out. After that, it's mostly about personality and team fit. Bring them in to do some white booarding (full access to resources) and work with the team, make sure they aren't smoke and mirrors. Then make a call. edit For example, take your ops guy. Best interview I've ever seen for ops is to throw them in a broken sandbox environment, give them root & tell them to fix it, and walk away.
jkyle 11y ago
> The huge gap between the university curriculum and the real world industry I'm not sure I agree with this though. "Real world" is very different from company to company, domain to domain. It also changes dramatically in just the few years required to attain a degree. I've always viewed universities as providing the foundation and discipline needed to adapt to any of those situations rather preparing or trying to guess at the needs of any particular one.