|
|
|
|
|
|
by ambition
5952 days ago
|
|
|
I think by and large we agree: It's wrong to expect memorized answers or to ask questions that are so narrow that they only test whether a candidate spent time studying. I'd even go so far as to say that algorithmic questions are probably not good indicators for skill at many kinds of work we would call "programming"---i.e. Programming skill is more heterogeneous than many interviewers admit. We shouldn't expect a jQuery wiz to nail low-level data structure questions, and we shouldn't expect a bit-twiddling video codec developer to really grok method chaining in 30 minutes. The trouble with "Be reasonable" is that's it's the advice equivalent of a tautology. Of course we should be reasonable when interviewing. But I don't think there's widespread agreement about how to operationalize that. I'd be curious for more detail about how you would do it---you seem to have strong, well-informed feelings on this issue. To my knowledge, there's basically no publicly-available research on tech interview factors and how they correlate with on-the-job performance. The good big employers do this research internally and keep it to themselves. The rest of us are stuck with assumptions, intuitions, logic and argument. So unfortunately I don't think we'll be able to get the debate into the realm of interpreting real data anytime soon. |
|
|
I think my primary argument is that it's basically impossible to assess "intelligence" at a 30-minute white-board session. There are too many other factors: thinking style, nerves, fear of speaking, etc. But most interviewers will flip the idiot bit if you don't answer their pet algorithm question quickly enough; it can be very difficult to come back from that kind of deficit.
It's usually pretty easy to tell if someone can't code -- you give them a straightforward problem (no "aha" moment required), and make them write the code. If you're really worried about it, give them a phone-screen problem that requires coding, then make them write a variant of the solution during the interview.
For "intelligence" testing, I like to give design problems, since they're far more representative of what will happen on the job. For these, I usually reach back into the grab-bag of recently-solved problems, and ask them to sketch out a solution, then iterate. If their solution is better than my own, that's a win. If it's the same, that's good too. If they just can't come up with something reasonable...well, we have a problem.
But note what you don't see here: there are no situations where I ask a question that requires a moment of algorithmic brilliance. That's just too random. Google can get away with that kind of stuff, because they get thousands of resumes a day, and can't possibly hire every good engineer that applies. For the rest of us, we have to be a bit more intelligent.