|
|
|
|
|
|
by ziddoap
2497 days ago
|
|
|
>There's a selection bias there. You're right, that is true. >but are you arguing that the interview process should select most people? Not by any means. Just that when possible, and to the extent possible, interviews should select using the least-bias methods available and to select the most applicable candidate for the position. Not the candidate that had the best recall memory of obscure problems after spending a few months studying from some "beat the whiteboard interview" website. I have no problem with whiteboard problems in general. It's a very specific subset of whiteboard problems that are used as a be-all-end-all, and are solving problems which will never be encountered in the position. These are they type of questions all of my comments have been regarding - not the whiteboard questions that demonstrate knowledge that will be used within the course of the job, or obscure questions where you are graded on the how rather than if you memorized the correct answer. |
|
|
Overwhelmingly problems, especially outside of FANG or hedge fund types (which I'd argue can actually use algo exp) align much closer to Fizz Buzz in difficulty. What I have seen, is supposedly senior candidates completely fail at those problems and be pretty arrogant at the fact. If you can't write a for loop or traverse a tree and print the nodes, etc I don't really care how many years you've been employed you're not a good fit. I wish we didnt' have to ask senior people to white board fizz buzz, but if you don't have a network willing to stick a neck out it just has to be done.
This may be a metro thing; NYC is a different make up than SF. Here at the very least, I've far more entitled unqualified people with no qualifications other than they got their first job when all you need to know to be a programmer was html and failed upward on a mountain of bullshit ever sense than I have seen qualified people choke at the whiteboard.