Yes, which is not impossible to tackle. There is structured and systematic way to attack it. Tons of study guide and materials on the net to help you. Not to mention tons of people successfully get hired.
As mentioned elsewhere, this is discriminatory against people with families and and commitments that prevent them from spending hundreds of hours in prep. Not to mention it affirms Goodhart’s Law, where a single metric- the ability to answer DS&A questions- overrules qualified applicants from becoming hired.
Not to mention such interview styles can be gamed. Suppose a Flatiron bootcamp for DS&A questions becomes big in response. What then? An arms race for more and more difficult weeder questions?
Such questions aren’t necessarily bad, but focusing on them to the exclusion of all other skills is becoming an anti-pattern.
I think a decent amount would trade "no technical interviews" for credential hiring (degree required for job). The degree would be a well-known, long-standing target vs. the vague moving target of technical interview competence.
This isn't unlike other professions, but you would lose self-taught developers who don't have the time/money to afford the credential. That is currently something special about development compared to many other professions.
This assuming you prevent people who can't do something like fizzbuzz from graduating with a CS degree.
> this is discriminatory against people with families and and commitments that prevent them from spending hundreds of hours in prep
Maybe but its not the purpose to select people with families or commitment. You choose to have families or commitment, you have to deal with the trade off.
>An arms race for more and more difficult weeder questions?
Its always be an arm race. Why to expect otherwise ?
Because hiring doesn’t have to be this adversarial process. And work doesn’t have to be this dehumanizing race to the bottom that excludes qualified people who are being excluded by bad metrics.
Not according to me, according to many in this thread, in dozens of articles posted on this site, and many more across the industry. There are all sorts of management principles and truisms people take for granted, and this is one of them that’s being called into question.
>Not according to me, according to many in this thread, in dozens of articles posted on this site, and many more across the industry.
Yes, that what said, but I doubt according to the people who do the hiring.
It doesn't matter if you think you are right candidate according to you or other people. Ultimately its the people who going to hire you who is going to judge you according to his/her subjective criteria.
At a certain scale, intent stops mattering. You need to take responsibility for the incentives in the systems you create. To do otherwise is just negligence.
Families are kind of important. They're usually a large part of the reason people have a job to begin with. To callously disregard the impact of a system on families is exceptionally appalling. You should not do that.
Not to mention such interview styles can be gamed. Suppose a Flatiron bootcamp for DS&A questions becomes big in response. What then? An arms race for more and more difficult weeder questions?
Such questions aren’t necessarily bad, but focusing on them to the exclusion of all other skills is becoming an anti-pattern.