Hacker News Reader

Comment by septimus111 | Hacker News Reader

I agree that these interviews are often just an annoying rite of passage, and they exclude many very talented programmers, but dismissing companies that use them as 'incompetent' seems like a stretch to me.

Learning basic data structures & algorithms is an immensely useful thing for a programmer, and completely essential in many cases. The best of these puzzles are based on problems which people have had to solve in the real world. For the companies, there are many benefits to conducting algorithms interviews:

- setting a minimum standard to make sure there is a shared language and knowledge that you can expect any engineer in company to know.

- making sure you are able to do more than trivial optimisation and go beyond the abstractions that libraries / frameworks provide

- giving you a simple problem to solve in 30 minutes to see if you can program at all.

View on HN

It's just laziness incarnate. This pushes all the investment of the first phase of interviewing someone onto an automated process and denies the candidate the opportunity to vet the company which is just as important as the reverse.

Well, actually they do allow the candidate to vet the company: the message they send is we don't care about you at all until you do a bunch of busywork and if you're very lucky we might allow a human to spend some cycles on reviewing your results.

If as a company that is the kind of message you would want your prospective employees to have that's fine with me but it would be good to remember that interviewing a candidate is a two way street.

> It's just laziness incarnate

You could be describing software in general.

Not really. Quite a bit of software is like a powertool and I certainly would not want to label the users of powertools as 'lazy'.

But these companies are not using software as a powertool, they are using software in a way that attempts to deny their counterparty a mutual investment in the relationship. And that to me is lazy.

How are companies supposed to evaluate candidates without giving them some form of busywork? The best way I can think of is to pay them to complete a project but that's not possible when you are interviewing loads of candidates.

Introduce them to the team they will be working with, have them do a code review or take a ticket and find their way through docs and discuss a potential solution.

In general teams are a much better judge of talent and ability than recruiters or your typical interviewer, especially in a normal work setting.

That's really expensive for the team in terms of time investment for possibly no payoff. Someone has to make sure that a candidate that gets to that point has a good chance of being hired. That person is "your typical interviewer."

Your typical interviewer, if he or she does not have relevant knowledge is just as likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater as they are to select the right candidates. There is no reason not to have the team do the pre-selection. I know this is all terrible news for recruiters and HR people alike but really there is nobody better qualified to determine who they want to work with on a particular problem than the existing team. The only situation where you would be better off with other people making that decision is when there is no team yet.

One thing I used to totally loathe during my brief stint as a programmer employed at a large organization is that when new people showed up that were already hired it was then up to us on the floor to make the best of a whole series of bad decisions preceding that moment.

So, let's involve the team in the messaging and pre-selection as well as giving them the final say.

Think about it this way: if you believe that the team you employ is the best possible group to do the work, don't you feel they are also the best possible group to determine how to expand the group?

What do you do when tons of people apply for a position?

Find a better way to reach your target audience. Getting people to self-select is the very best way to reduce the load from interviewing.

How would you do that? Also, saying there will be a coding interview up front does cause people to self select.

It would definitely take up some team resources, but it's not more complex than the work they're already doing. So 'how would you do that' is the wrong question. The question should be 'how would they do that?' and the answer I don't know but I'm sure if you ask a team they'll be more than happy to explain, after all it is their (and not my) future that is at stake and given the fact that they are involved they'll do the best possible job to make sure they have to go through it the minimum number of times with the largest chance of success.

This is still far less effort than a wrong hire would cause. Anyway, I can see that my methods are not acceptable (yet), maybe in another decade or so?

Trust is hard. Even companies that trust their tech people with the corporate crown jewels still have a hard to impossible time trusting them with such everyday decisions such as who they want to work with. It's counterproductive to say the least but that's how we've been doing it for the last 40 years, so I don't expect any major changes in the near future.

Fair enough. I think without coding interviews networking would become even more important than it is now, and it is already very important now. Moving more towards a "networking" world would mean things are less a meritocracy. It would not be about what you know, but who you know. Personally I find that unappealing because it doesn't seem fair, but I know some people aren't interested in "fair" anyways.

Instead of people complaining about coding interviews on HN, you would have a lot of programmers complaining that they are introverts who are just good at their job, and don't think that they should be punished for not being a people person.

I don't think teams should be penalized for not hiring people that aren't team players. There are good spots for introverts in IT but teams usually (though not always, I've seen some interesting exceptions to this rule) are not too welcoming to that sort of person.

If the world were gamified to the point that your skills are all that matters then yes, a solely merit based approach would work. But in the world we live in today people skills matter (a lot, actually). On a personal note, this was a very hard lesson for me to absorb, the first years of my career introvert would have been too friendly a description, anti-social probably would have been a better one. But over time I got a bit better at working with others.

> Your typical interviewer, if he or she does not have relevant knowledge is just as likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater as they are to select the right candidates. There is no reason not to have the team do the pre-selection.

What are you talking about? The interviewers are almost always from the team.

> Think about it this way: if you believe that the team you employ is the best possible group to do the work, don't you feel they are also the best possible group to determine how to expand the group?

Yes, and that's why most companies have their devs do interviewing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com