|
|
|
|
|
|
by mellavora
1286 days ago
|
|
|
False. I've been operating as a high level programmer for over a decade and have a MsC in comp sci from a top school and a statistics/comp sci related Ph.D. I was bored at my job and thought I'd apply at Meta. I've never really used python professionally (more of an R person, though I've solo dev'ed apps which have been in clinical usage for 3+ years with typescript front ends). Did hours of leetcode over the course of 2 months to prep, because I was bored at my job and I thought it would be a fun way to improve my python skills. Failed the coding section of the interview. Feedback was: "The candidate clearly understands the problem and is an excellent communicator, but seems rusty with python." No worries and no complaints, the story has a happy ending. |
|
|
> "The candidate clearly understands the problem and is an excellent communicator, but seems rusty with python."
The feedback is always worthless. It may -- or may not[1] -- honestly reflect what the interviewer thought of you, but the interview process is not set up to produce reliable results, which means that what they thought of you isn't really related to your characteristics. There is only a very tenuous connection between their assessment of you and your performance.
[1] The last time I interviewed with Google, the recruiter congratulated me on doing well in the interviews and told me to expect a job offer. What followed was multiple weeks of silence (technically, not silence, they also asked me to make changes to my resume) and then the message that they were not interested in hiring me because my interview performance was poor. Whatever else we may say about this, we cannot avoid the conclusion that some of the feedback you get consists of intentional lies.