| > (the graduates I've been interviewing in SF) ... can't practically design a system on their own, and if ever confronted with a graph theory problem, can't do much more than name-drop algorithms, and fall far short of being able to implement those algorithms. Interviewing people does not tell you the capabilities of people - interviews are very artificial processes. I'm not exactly a computer scientist (or a recent graduate), but I work with tradeoffs every day, most of which are data derived, not problem derived & that is only visible from experiments on the data (sometimes across millions of ops). However, what I really end up doing is actually different from just running experiments - I run the scale tests and go running while it runs. I do my best thinking when I'm running - about a 10 minute mile pace in sunshine gives me my best ideas, perhaps it is a heart-rate thing. And even when I have an idea, I will dig through researchgate for a couple of hours before I actually start pulling it apart (often, I find people have described the math which helps me think better) - like HyperLogLog used for IN() estimations. Nobody's going to allow me to do any of those things in an interview. Interviews are really about selecting people to hire, not about their abilities. |
I don't think I'd know how to interview someone for your position.
I do my best thinking when I'm running
I've had similar experiences. Of course I'm not possessed by the idea that interviews are very good as a general mechanism. I've given allowances for nervousness and pressure. I certainly know what it's like to be on the other side of the table. Even allowing for all of those things, it leaves me wondering.