|
|
|
|
|
|
by gaylemcd
3316 days ago
|
|
|
No. "On an average interview at google" is not really the same thing. It's not getting at the same point. Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then that interview process is broken. If you have a company with a bad implementation of whiteboard coding interviews (for example, who just pull questions out of Cracking the Coding Interview), then it's absolutely true that a bad candidate could pass this process. This doesn't mean that whiteboard interviews are broken. It means that this company's implementation of whiteboard interviews is broken. There is a difference. For Google specifically, their implementation is decent, but not ideal. A bad candidate would have low odds of passing an average interview at Google, but those odds are not as low as I'd like. |
|
|
>> On a higher level - how much of an "already seen the algorithm" crapshot are tech interviews?
>I'd say it is mostly that. Just do thirty to fifty leetcode medium problems (some of them on pen and paper), and you're good to go.
Nobody in this thread cares if the reason this advice actually (in actual practice) often works is that the interview process is broken.
nobody cares if the reason we get the job is because we exploited a flaw, and we "shouldn't have" done it that way. Basically, where you just wrote,
>Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then that interview process is broken.
you should have written:
>Taking a step back: If preparation can give a bad candidate a good shot at passing the interview, then I have to admit, if you strictly want to increase your chances of getting a job, then you can do so by preparing -- but I grit my teeth while saying that, because that interview process is broken.
that would have been honest and matches the reason others had for the above thread! anyway, thanks for the responses.