4 ms·

"Red flags often surface at this point. I’ve had candidates with PhDs in computer science, for instance, who did not know that on a 64 bit architecture, pointer

by RogerL 11y ago

"Red flags often surface at this point. I’ve had candidates with PhDs in computer science, for instance, who did not know that on a 64 bit architecture, pointers are 64 bits wide." Because learning 64-bit architecture is impossible for somebody that have proven that they can learn a field, perform research, and successfully write and defend a dissertation? '32 < 64' is beyond them?

bzz01 11y ago
I guess author assumes that if you don't know basic things like that, it is questionable that your degree is a proof that you "can learn a field etc." Not sure that I agree on the choice of this specific "red flag"; on the other hand, having PhD in CS is a red-ish flag to me per se.
- mediocrejoker 11y ago
  "... on the other hand, having PhD in CS is a red-ish flag to me per se. " I would be interested in hearing your reasons for that.
  - bzz01 11y ago
    So of course I'm generalizing, not everyone is like that, not everyone's CS degree is like that, etc. etc. Also, more true for recent grads. But in my experience people with advanced "pure CS" degrees seem to be focused on the process not the result. I mean, they went to CS because they like to tinker with type systems, elegant algebraic concepts, nice abstract problems -- and not just as a hobby, they like it so much so they commited several years of their lifes to do that. Not that this is bad area of research, but generally when you look for a software engineer you look for someone not only smart but also pragmatic, who can get stuff done in a simple and efficient way, and this is kind of the opposite. Of all PhDs, in my experience people who have degrees in areas that use programming as a tool not the goal in it self, e.g. physicis/EE, make the best software engineers.
teraflop 11y ago
You could say that about almost any kind of knowledge-based evaluation. If I ask somebody ten factual questions and they know the answers to five of them, how should I interpret that? Sure, it would be easy for me to just fill in those particular gaps in their knowledge. But assuming my questions were well-chosen, it's reasonable for me to expect that they'll continue to hit similar gaps in the future, about 50% of the time. That's not to say that a good interview consists of drilling someone on facts; more often, they come up implicitly in the context of solving a problem. And as an interviewer, I'll look much more favorably on a candidate who recognizes what they don't know, because I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that in a real-world situation, they would be able to do the necessary research. But even so, if there are basic things they don't understand, it's a red flag because it tells me they're encountering these concepts for the first time.
patmcguire 11y ago
Ah, but the company builds static analysis tools. Dinging someone for not knowing the minutia of languages makes a lot more sense when the minutia of languages is your business.
ericlippert 11y ago
No, because we are actually building telescopes here, and astronomy PhDs apply, and when they are not actually clear on the difference between a reflector and refractor telescope you realize, hey, this person is going to need to learn so much about the very basics of the field that they're applying for that it's not going to be a good fit. I've had candidates with PhDs in computer science who thought that pointers on 64 bit operating systems were two bytes wide. Do they believe that there are only 16000 possible allocations before the allocator fails? Not likely, because that's ridiculous. So how could they have that belief? because they understand so little about pointers that they don't understand the implications of their false beliefs. I need someone who is going to command the salary that a PhD-level candidate will demand to be able to hit the ground running.
- smil 11y ago
  You seem very entitled.
  - brobdingnagian 11y ago
    I agree.
  - schrodinger 11y ago
    Do you know who Eric lippert is or the work he does? This knowledge is absolutely very important for the kind of work for which he'd be hiring.
  - dang 11y ago
    > You seem very entitled. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
- zerr 11y ago
  Different perspective: I believe for most CS persons this would be a 5-minute-difference... i.e. it would take 5 mins for them to understand/research 64 bit OS pointers size. So basically you're penalizing potential good candidates for just 5 minutes of their life.
kelnos 11y ago
He's not saying a PhD means you necessarily won't know that 64bit machines use 64bit pointers, he's merely pointing out that he has seen candidates where that's been the case, and that you can't assume that having an advanced degree means you understand the minutiae of computer architecture and how memory addressing & compilers work.

by RogerL 11y ago

bzz01 11y ago

I guess author assumes that if you don't know basic things like that, it is questionable that your degree is a proof that you "can learn a field etc." Not sure that I agree on the choice of this specific "red flag"; on the other hand, having PhD in CS is a red-ish flag to me per se.

mediocrejoker 11y ago
"... on the other hand, having PhD in CS is a red-ish flag to me per se. " I would be interested in hearing your reasons for that.
- bzz01 11y ago
  So of course I'm generalizing, not everyone is like that, not everyone's CS degree is like that, etc. etc. Also, more true for recent grads. But in my experience people with advanced "pure CS" degrees seem to be focused on the process not the result. I mean, they went to CS because they like to tinker with type systems, elegant algebraic concepts, nice abstract problems -- and not just as a hobby, they like it so much so they commited several years of their lifes to do that. Not that this is bad area of research, but generally when you look for a software engineer you look for someone not only smart but also pragmatic, who can get stuff done in a simple and efficient way, and this is kind of the opposite. Of all PhDs, in my experience people who have degrees in areas that use programming as a tool not the goal in it self, e.g. physicis/EE, make the best software engineers.

teraflop 11y ago

You could say that about almost any kind of knowledge-based evaluation. If I ask somebody ten factual questions and they know the answers to five of them, how should I interpret that? Sure, it would be easy for me to just fill in those particular gaps in their knowledge. But assuming my questions were well-chosen, it's reasonable for me to expect that they'll continue to hit similar gaps in the future, about 50% of the time. That's not to say that a good interview consists of drilling someone on facts; more often, they come up implicitly in the context of solving a problem. And as an interviewer, I'll look much more favorably on a candidate who recognizes what they don't know, because I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that in a real-world situation, they would be able to do the necessary research. But even so, if there are basic things they don't understand, it's a red flag because it tells me they're encountering these concepts for the first time.

patmcguire 11y ago

Ah, but the company builds static analysis tools. Dinging someone for not knowing the minutia of languages makes a lot more sense when the minutia of languages is your business.

ericlippert 11y ago

No, because we are actually building telescopes here, and astronomy PhDs apply, and when they are not actually clear on the difference between a reflector and refractor telescope you realize, hey, this person is going to need to learn so much about the very basics of the field that they're applying for that it's not going to be a good fit. I've had candidates with PhDs in computer science who thought that pointers on 64 bit operating systems were two bytes wide. Do they believe that there are only 16000 possible allocations before the allocator fails? Not likely, because that's ridiculous. So how could they have that belief? because they understand so little about pointers that they don't understand the implications of their false beliefs. I need someone who is going to command the salary that a PhD-level candidate will demand to be able to hit the ground running.

smil 11y ago
You seem very entitled.
- brobdingnagian 11y ago
  I agree.
- schrodinger 11y ago
  Do you know who Eric lippert is or the work he does? This knowledge is absolutely very important for the kind of work for which he'd be hiring.
- dang 11y ago
  > You seem very entitled. Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
zerr 11y ago
Different perspective: I believe for most CS persons this would be a 5-minute-difference... i.e. it would take 5 mins for them to understand/research 64 bit OS pointers size. So basically you're penalizing potential good candidates for just 5 minutes of their life.

kelnos 11y ago

He's not saying a PhD means you necessarily won't know that 64bit machines use 64bit pointers, he's merely pointing out that he has seen candidates where that's been the case, and that you can't assume that having an advanced degree means you understand the minutiae of computer architecture and how memory addressing & compilers work.