|
So I'm taking your point, at the moment, to be that you are getting exposed to more folks that seem less capable in basic interviews. Even at the higher education levels. My priors would label this as just you getting more exposure to what is out there. Previously, you were likely mainly exposed to your peers. Did you personally perform more of the interviews in the past, or more in the present?
At an absolute level, I would tend to agree that increasing the volume increases both good and bad. Where the contention seems to be, is if there is truly a lowering of the bar across the board, or if you are just personally exposed to more of the folks that can't make it? And I confess I have no numbers. I am terribly optimistic and generally forgiving of interview gaffes. Don't get me wrong, now that I do interviews, it has been somewhat baffling just how wrong some folks can be. The most troubling are the folks that seem genuinely clueless that they have done a poor job. However, the "strawmen" I'm asking are not hypothetical. I've literally been asked some of those. My favorite was when I was asked what I knew was a de Bruijn cycle, but confessed I would be unable to code without reference. And even then it would take time. Interviewer insisted I try, and seemed to get frustrated that I didn't succeed. The very next interviewer basically asked me to do A*. Something I feel like I should be able to do, but quite frankly it has been a long time since I did those and I have grown used to reference material. Similarly, I have been asked "how would you build snapchat/instagram" and "how would you build maps?" Both of which, I feel like I could have better answers for, but the truth is that I would start by trying to understand exactly how they are built today. |