| >I have never had an interview where I felt rejected for what I thought was a single dumb question, ever. This is moving the goalposts. That is not the same thing as a wanton disregard for realism. Have you been asked interview questions and set tasks which were not related to what you actually do day in day out? I have. LOTS. >I don't necessarily disagree with this, but could you elaborate more on what bad things are actually happening that affect people? Are good coders, by and large, not able to get jobs? Are good coders having statistically significant problems getting paid or finding enjoyable work? I don't think so. Please elaborate on what actual damage is being done, I'm not seeing any. Um, more false positives and more false negatives. It honestly feels weird having to justify why realism in testing is important. It feels so damned obvious to me. Would you design a purposefully unrealistic scientific experiment? Create a deliberately unrealistic automated test? What's special about interviewing that realism is of secondary or tertiary concern? What is more important than realism? >I'm not automatically on the side of @mxcl because he was turned down It feels kind of like you're automatically on Google's side. The part that made me go what the fuck was when you said "he makes it sound like he expected to get the job without an interview" when he neither said nor implied anything of the sort. And, earlier you took it as a kind of article of faith that everybody at google was obviously super smart, because Google. There's definitely some bias there. >I'm interested in whether they paid attention in school. That's cool. I'm interested in whether they can do their job and I think it's kind of weird how people are seemingly so keen on setting tasks that test anything but that. >None of that precludes asking some realistic questions Strictly speaking asking what their favorite kind of chocolate is doesn't preclude that either, but there's a limited time available to interview and a limited amount that can be learned from asking them that - or indeed - anything else of tangential relevance. |
What goalposts? You said it was an embarrassment that @mxcl didn't get hired by Google because of the "dumb" question. I've responded directly to your claims.
> What is more important than realism?
For me, questions that assess honesty, optimism, curiosity, potential, and communication skills all rank higher than technical questions that are "realistic". I care more about attitude and potential than I do about whether they can perform specific job duties already.
> There's definitely some bias there.
If there is, I wouldn't know it, but I think you're wrong. Do you know more than @mxcl tweeted? Do you know for a fact what happened? Have you heard Google's side of that story? Are you biased against Google? Do you believe one tweet is true and tells the whole story?
The fact that @mxcl tweeted with indignance about his interview experience is what implied he expected to get the job without an interview. That's a fact, not an interpretation. He didn't so much imply it as say it directly, that he shouldn't have to invert a binary tree because 90% of Google uses his software.
> I'm interested in whether they can do their job and I think it's kind of weird how people are seemingly so keen on setting tasks that test anything but that.
I don't really understand why you just got so snarky, it's probably my fault for arguing, but it was calm a couple of messages back. I'm honestly sorry if something I said ticked you off.
You're taking my comment out of context and trying to make it sound like something it's not. I can be interested in whether someone learned in school and still be interested in whether they'll do a good job, right? In fact, I'd go way out on a limb to suggest that doing well in school is a reasonable (but not perfect) proxy for how well someone might do in a job. Especially, but not limited, to new college grads.