Wrong question - the right question is "which companies don't have the typical whiteboard interview". Mine didn't, and it's a regular software engineer job.
Here's a list of some - never used it but was on here a while back:
Here's a list of some - never used it but was on here a while back:
Wrong assumption - the majority of my on-site interviews don't even use whiteboards. They involve discussing real world problems and work experiences with me. I still do not get offers from them.
This seems like a good interview process. If you're qualified for the position, then what part of the interview is working against you?
I can certainly work with a team and I can program at least as well as most of my peers, but interviews are difficult for me.
You could go find your nearest open-mic night and sing/play for the audience. You can read poetry or sing karaoke.
It's probably going to suck the first time you do this. However, keep doing it. Eventually, you will get more comfortable and confident. It takes lots of practice.
I did a lot of stage performances as a musician. I used to vomit before going on stage. Eventually, I got used to it. Eventually, I was able to interact with the crowd. Eventually, I got comfortable. This confidence helped with many other areas of my life. It did take work and pushing through the discomfort and fear. It was not easy.
This may work for you.
Maybe it helps to contact the company that rejected you and ask them why they rejected you. This would allow you to narrow down your weaknesses and improve these skills. I've never tried this myself, so I'm not sure how common such a request is, but it seems like a sensible thing to do.
I’d be happy to do this for acquaintances near me (Cambridge, Mass.)
Here's an example:
- apply to job
- recruiter does phone screen
- you're asked you to complete exercise before an interviewer has reviewed your profile/resume/application
- you put a bunch of work into doing exercise well and return it
- your exercise is not reviewed at all because: the job has been filled, the job has been closed, an interviewer didn't like your resume/CV/application, the recruiter misplaces your exercise, the team is too busy to review any exercises, etc.
So its not really a coding exercise where we ask someone to fix a bug or write code and then evaluate their coding style. Its a little different in that we are looking for problem solving skills in a startup environment. I don't think this approach will work for a large company where every developer has a specific role. But it works well for us.
I suspect every good candidate had the same approach. If you're getting people to do this for free, you're not getting very good applicants.
In this market, the people you're interviewing are far more desirable than you are.
As an interviewer, I tend to avoid paying applicants. It just feels odd. Instead, I try to make the opportunity (interview plus potential job) as enticing as I can. Once it gets out that an that an interviewee pays interviewees, I'd be concerned that I'd attract "professional" interviewees who just want the money. As a blood bank, I wouldn't pay people to donate blood either for reasons that feel similar.
The kind of coding tests I don't like are the ones that seem too onerous and involved for the given role. I have recently phone interviewed with a company, which they don't make their own software as a revenue source but build software for other clients. I talked over the phone with one of the lead programmers, discussed my skills, situations related to my work experience, etc.
Afterwards, he issued me a coding exercise with a VERY DETAILED .pdf document that felt uncomfortably close to a request for proposal and summaries of requirements. I hesitated and replied back about this. They assured me that this is not unpaid work and that everyone has to take this same test, in the language of their choosing. The test was intended to produce code for a MVC web app that they can evaluate. So I guess they really wanted sample code, despite having already produced other samples from Github, and discussed my real-world MVC work projects from my perspective as a mid-level developer (including one where I had architectural control).
I think the most disappointing thing, though, is that this long test is mandatory for everyone that they interview. So, the responses and decisions you make in the phone interview portion don't seem to have any real impact on the next step in the process. Someone could have a highly popular library on Github and they could still say, okay you gotta take this test. Non-trivial tests should be tailor made to a person's own experience.
Interesting. I think that is one good approach. Because I've come across many people (aspiring to be software workers) who 1) cannot even follow clearly specified instructions to the letter (a basic skill for a software person), and/or 2) cannot figure out ways to deviate from those instructions in meaningful ways, if they do not work.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=ctci+coding+full+form
for those who don't know the acronym.
I've had a few people (beginners looking for a job) ask me for help on just those sorts of interview questions - and not being interested in spending time on learning the underlying fundamentals, though I had mentored them (on mentoring sites like Codementor) some on those areas earlier (at their request). Misguided, to say the least. Told them that that (just doing the interview prep) is not a good approach, because, even if they manage to clear/pass the interview, with or without my or others' help, they will likely get found out soon for their lack of fundamental knowledge, soon after getting a job.
Wrong question. The right question is "which companies actually respond to you within a week of application submission". Those "reapply in six months if you don't hear anything" emails tell me a LOT about a company's real priorities.