So, look.
I agree with Hillel that coming up with a fair, equitable interview process is impossible.
The accurate part, IMO, is not at all impossible.
And that makes it doubly insulting the things interviewers are trying to PASS OFF as "accurate."
A thread. 1/
I agree with Hillel that coming up with a fair, equitable interview process is impossible.
The accurate part, IMO, is not at all impossible.
And that makes it doubly insulting the things interviewers are trying to PASS OFF as "accurate."
A thread. 1/
https://twitter.com/hillelogram/status/1498728165300228103
First of all, let's address the possibleness of accuracy.
I once had a job where the interview was literally "work with us for a day on the stuff we work on every day."
Does everyone love this interview? No. But it's f**king accurate as h*ll.
I once had a job where the interview was literally "work with us for a day on the stuff we work on every day."
Does everyone love this interview? No. But it's f**king accurate as h*ll.
Why? Because it was the job, exactly.
We NEVER got a false positive from that interview. No one ever walked in surprised by what the job was.
Everyone I ever worked with there who I might have classified as "a dud" came to us through some other process that wasn't this one.
We NEVER got a false positive from that interview. No one ever walked in surprised by what the job was.
Everyone I ever worked with there who I might have classified as "a dud" came to us through some other process that wasn't this one.
Were there false negatives? I don't know. We didn't track it. We probably should have. In our defense, literally no one tracks this, with the SINGULAR exception of the guy who got rejected from Facebook and went and founded Whatsapp.
Are there equity and fairness concerns with asking people to take a day off work and come work for us, uncompensated? Yes.
But accuracy is definitely not the issue.
Let's talk about some of the things I've had companies throw at me to decide if I could do a job.
But accuracy is definitely not the issue.
Let's talk about some of the things I've had companies throw at me to decide if I could do a job.
One time I got asked to, I realized later, implement Dijkstra's algorithm live in an hour, while being stared down by two silent men, in a coderpad with no existing abstractions on top of the data structure.
I cannot do this. But furthermore, and more importantly...
I cannot do this. But furthermore, and more importantly...
...I don't actually believe the INTERVIEWERS could do this if it were not part of their job to run people through this exercise on a regular basis.
A problem that you can only succeed at by having solved it before is not realistic to professional software engineering.
A problem that you can only succeed at by having solved it before is not realistic to professional software engineering.
On another occasion, I got asked to complete a take-home (this works a lot better for me and, IMHO, is more accurate to an actual job than a live pop challenge).
In the meeting where I was to discuss my solution with their interviewer...
In the meeting where I was to discuss my solution with their interviewer...
...the interviewer decided, on the spot, to ask me to code something live.
He wasn't supposed to do this and did it anyway, undoubtedly because I don't look to him like an engineer (ask all your femme eng friends; sudden pop technical interviews are a regular occurrence for us)
He wasn't supposed to do this and did it anyway, undoubtedly because I don't look to him like an engineer (ask all your femme eng friends; sudden pop technical interviews are a regular occurrence for us)
Whatever, sure
So I'm gamely implementing the thing. But before I do, I change the signature of the method he's asked me to implement. I explain why I'm changing it and why the one I've proposed is better.
He seems unsettled about this, but idgaf, so we keep going.
So I'm gamely implementing the thing. But before I do, I change the signature of the method he's asked me to implement. I explain why I'm changing it and why the one I've proposed is better.
He seems unsettled about this, but idgaf, so we keep going.
Later, there's a problem with the code. We're both looking at it. Remember, I wrote it live in front of him while talking the whole time. He knows it as well as I do.
He starts...typing a method with the signature he originally proposed, suggesting my signature is the problem.
He starts...typing a method with the signature he originally proposed, suggesting my signature is the problem.
AS he does that, I find the problem in my method, fix it, and we keep going with mine.
The incident made it clear that he was conducting this interview with a solution either on hand in another window, or that he had memorized one.
The incident made it clear that he was conducting this interview with a solution either on hand in another window, or that he had memorized one.
Once again, if THE INTERVIEWER is not more capable of completing the challenge than the interviewee without prior prep, it's probably not accurate to the job.
That's the insulting farce.
Interviewers take a very specific challenge and equate it to "your value as an engineer."
I know companies say they don't do that. But I've sat in many candidate eval meetings and watched it. Heard how they talk about candidates.
They 100% do it.
Interviewers take a very specific challenge and equate it to "your value as an engineer."
I know companies say they don't do that. But I've sat in many candidate eval meetings and watched it. Heard how they talk about candidates.
They 100% do it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
