| >What you study for an interview is unfortunately often only vaguely correlated with what you do on a job. Agreed 100%. Interviewing is hard. I would argue though that interviewing for "architecture" causes another issue. To give an analogy... it's like studying english for a programming job because english is used all the time on the job. Architecture is just too easy and too obvious and if you just happen to not know a specific architecture or way of speeding something up, all you have to do is read about it on the internet like looking up vocabulary on a dictionary. I would also argue that google isn't exactly just testing algorithmic skills in an interview. The spiritual goal of the interview is that the question they give you is novel and one you haven't seen before. The overall purpose of novel questions is to measure your raw intelligence. The question isn't whether or not you know how to reverse a binary tree but whether or not from a state of not knowing how to do it, can you creatively come up with a way to do it in an hour? Raw IQ. Of course the practice doesn't always match up with the ideal and often times interviewees can get lucky. I'm not saying that this is the best way to interview. I'm saying that judging an interview based off of architecture is even worse. It's even easier and there's a lot of room for bullshit in a conversational interview as opposed to a technical question. |