[35bge57dtjku]

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's as easy as you make it sound. What about the candidates that talk so much that it seems like they are stalling and therefore don't get a reasonable and reasonably complete solution on the whiteboard in the alloted time, despite repeated prompting? What about the guys who don't explain much and take way longer than expected on simple problems, and when asked about it reveal that they are just blowing all this time internally debating the perfect solution?

[jghn]

Sure, those people exist. My belief is that most of those people would perform adequately at the extreme majority of jobs.

[35bge57dtjku]

Then what criteria do you use during an interview?

[jghn]

I'm not in charge of setting our hiring bar so it doesn't really matter. Given my druthers I'd give a candidate a not particularly difficult multi-hour coding project just to show that they can build something and would like to have a conversation with them that shows both breadth and depth of knowledge.

[35bge57dtjku]

Ok, but none of what you said addresses my concerns. And sadly, this is what always happens when I press people for better interviewing techniques.

If they can't finish squat in 60 minutes are they likely to finish something in double that time? If they are, I could just ask them something that should take 30 minutes to finish and give them double that time to finish it, and just pretend like everything's fine...

> and would like to have a conversation with them that shows both breadth and depth of knowledge.

Conversation is nice and all, but there are people who can do that but fall flat with the coding. And that is a significant part of the job.