Comment by d--b | Hacker News Reader

Comment by d--b | Hacker News Reader

This is starting to be a bit annoying... I think we read enough about painful interviews. If anyone has a better way, please share... But it'd be nice to skip the ranting...

I personally have been the evil interviewer for some time. I'm giving paper coding tests that make sense to me, and I'm generally very happy with my recruiting. I have never met anyone who slammed the door screaming "I'm too good to take your stupid test". I've passed people who completely screwed the test. I've failed people who nailed it in 5 minutes.

I've taken interviews where I was asked brain teasers, fibonacci things, pointer swapping, class hierarchy things. I've been accepted to some jobs where I failed the tests, I've been thanked to some jobs where I passed the test.

The point is it is NOT about the test.

When I read someone saying "I've taken countless interviews, and I don't get a job", I'm thinking: well, either he's been very unlucky (which happens), or there is something wrong with the guy's attitude.

I'm giving paper coding tests that make sense to me, and I'm generally very happy with my recruiting. [...] I've passed people who completely screwed the test. I've failed people who nailed it in 5 minutes.

When I read someone saying "I've taken countless interviews, and I don't get a job", I'm thinking: well, either he's been very unlucky (which happens), or there is something wrong with the guy's attitude.

Yeah, must be their attitude. Not the arbitrary and biased test given by an interviewer who doesn't even realize it's arbitrary or biased or that they're selecting for qualities they personally think are important rather than whether the candidate can actually do the work.

Coming from the other side of the process, even if a question may be arbitrary (Although, I'd argue a lot aren't) it can still be helpful in evaluating a candidate's thought process. Additionally, using the same questions on multiple candidates is a good way to actually cut bias out of the system as you have a lot more data points to evaluate responses against.

> or that they're selecting for qualities they personally think are important

But that explains one or a few failed interviews. Once it becomes a consistent trend you have to start looking at the common denominator.

Why so defensive? This is actually a very close representation of Google hiring funnel.

I don't think the point is the tests described into the article (which I found hilarious, btw). I think the point is about the amount of resources, perceived by the candidate, that the company pours into a totally jammed hiring process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com