[bethling]

As an interviewer, I'd much rather see your intermediate steps - the messy parts, etc. I feel like I can get a better idea about how you work and think. Interview questions (for me) aren't about "can you solve this" they're more about trying to see how you work. I ask questions about decisions you made, and I like it if you can talk about what you're thinking.

Interview problems are contrived. I don't care if you stumble a little bit. Heck, I'm always happy when I see someone start off the wrong way, notice that something's wrong, take a step back and go a better path.

If you go off with a paper and pen and just give me an answer, I miss out on a lot of that. And even though the anxiety might not show how you normally interact (and I totally understand that) - I can't possibly get any sense as to how you work in a collaborative environment.

I've never had anyone ask to do problems on paper instead of a whiteboard, and I wouldn't refuse it to them - but I just get a feeling that I'd be less likely to be inclined to hiring them - not because of the paper, but because there's no way to see the things that I most like to see.

[calibraxis]

I don't like the fact that my observations affect what I'm observing, as an interviewer. If someone wishes to yak with me at each step, fine. Alternately, if they wish to silently cast about a bit in non-rational gestalt, maybe ask me odd questions or play with the data to get familiar with it, then converge on a bulletproof solution... also fine. I do not need to stick my probes in their mind to observe each step. There exist other methods to demonstrate how they collaborate.

[jebblue]

That sounds more like a visit with Froyd than a programmer interview.

[grot]

Freud?