Ask HN: How to deal with inexperienced interviewers? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How to deal with inexperienced interviewers?

102 pointsaecs9973 comments

Some interviewers are great - they are patient, let you talk, are genuinely curious about your previous work, and ask questions such that the interview is meaningful for both parties.

On the other hand, I frequently come across some inexperienced interviewers (often young, or early in their career). They interrupt you before you finish, ask obscure questions, and try to assert that your professional experience and knowledge is somehow inferior to theirs (or at least make you feel that way).

I feel excited about challenging questions/interviews but sessions with such folks (over the phone, or in person) are always disappointing, and negatively impact the interview outcome. I was wondering if there are any tips on how to handle such interviewers.

View on HN

I am at my wits end. I am getting exhausted and drained in these interviews.

There are times where I just botch interviews. Here and there, I look back and realize I came off the wrong way, like wow, I did that. But I reflect, and strive to get better. Sometimes it's just not a fit. Or someone comes along that's a better option than me.

But there is a growing pocket of places I interview at where they blatantly lie, bait and switch, ignore my portfolio and go right into brainteasers, code golf, and refactors that have absolutely nothing to do with the role being filled. Then radio silence.

I'm coming to the conclusion I'd rather earn less and work more hours on my own than enable this system. Because I have an indictment far more damning the OP: Some of the people interviewing me can barely code and are trying to survive another day. Not to mention, there are some who are afraid of letting in a stronger candidate that could replace them. Heh, what do you think they do?

Last interview I had, I discussed multiple times it being in Django and Python. Come the time of our call, interviewer flipped the script, it's in JavaScript, Underscore, and the data being passed around is so ambiguous it meshed together in my mind through the remainder of our call. I don't know if it's a clueless interviewer - or a really shrewd one who knew how to lay one over me.

Or is it me? The problem I face is getting beat down by all these tests makes me feel I'm not a good coder. Due to the fog of Dunning-Kruger, I know I can never be sure if the deficit is really on my end or not.

Does anyone else out there feel this?

I have published code all over. I code 10+ hours a day, even on the weekends. I get hammered in technical interviews.

It's Hanlon's razor. Tech interviewing is done poorly, almost everywhere. It's cargo culted to death, with little thought. It's brutal on certain types of personalities. It predominately favors people without families or responsibilities. And it rarely correlates with actual engineering skill.

I personally get bad anxiety from interviews, from some negative experiences. To the point where I actively avoid interviews, even if in my best interest. Not worth the risk, I think. I recognize this is self defeating and self limiting though. And it's something I need to deal with and overcome.

All I can offer is that you try to accept there is the "interview game" and you have to play it. Fortunately once you get that job, you can forget about it for a while.

Not everywhere. Most places I've interviewed for had a recruiter and an actual team member; after the recruiter ticks their checkboxes for "moves Mt.Fuji" and "can tell a RB tree from a hole in the ground", someone who actually works with the code takes over with domain-specific questions. (Yes, I'm aware this wouldn't scale for an organization that hires by the thousands)

Yeah not everywhere. I was being a little dramatic. This is like the 10000th hacker news post on interviews after all.

London contractor job market could be a good case study for what happens when interviews are more reasonable. It's usually a phone call, and an hour face to face and you get a job. Some people hop every 6 months. Others stick around longer (with the spectre of HMRC IR35 hanging over them). Everyone seems to get to know each other in the job market pretty fast. When you need someone, you know who to call because you have worked with a lot of people and know who's good and who's not.

Thanks for this. I agree that some companies are sane, or even progressive.

I personally have been lucky enough never to have heard the Mt Fuji question.

I'll raise my hand.

When I look back it seems I'm experienced at hearing other peoples software requirements and implementing them.

From university to the workplace, I seem to be very good since those who receive the end result always benefit.

Done it so many times, for others and for my own ideas.

But check this out, occasionally in a dry period, when I feel I should find a job and get an interview.

I get asked a puzzle, unrelated to anything, no benefit to the interviewer or their company, in a language that requires a thicker than the bible manual, to program in some corner case that I would never find myself in and to someone to see the solution in the future to also feel the urge to puke.

And don't even get me started on the latest frameworks buzzword bingo crap.

You know, the tipping point was once when I got a rejection email where the top guy said I wasn't even good at a particular language, one which I'd programmed several applications for some years.

Some guy, who last "coded" by "clicking" on a button which generated a TODO list single page web fucking app.

Fuck all of you because we do what you dream of wanting to do that you'll never be able to do, not because you are running out of time, it's because you just don't have the chops.

You really should be doing something else with your life.

Don't get me started on the framework buzzword bullshit. I'm so sick of developers that launch into 50 tool stacks just to tick the boxes. Whether it's resume driven development or just plain ignorance, it seems to be pervasive.

I hate that every other interaction I have with the developer community is suggesting that a newbie back up a few steps and understand the problem they're trying to solve before introducing a solution, or worse yet, suggesting that the person trying to help them shut the fuck up and stop recommending things this beginner has no business using. The mindset is literally everywhere. It's like I'm surrounded by a cult of redux middleware worshippers that is trying to drain my will to live before they hand me a cup of cyanide.

I'm interviewing candidates for front-end roles at the moment and every other one is someone that has launched into a huge React project with barely any basic understanding of Javascript or web development. Half the candidates have every buzzword under the sun in their resume, and a GitHub full of little React projects with all the dependencies checked off nicely, then you get them into an interview and half of them can't name a single HTTP method, while the other half have done 5+ years of jQuery, and yet couldn't tell a closure from a prototype.

One of my first questions is always to ask them what front-end tools they are familiar with, and then follow up with "what problem does that tool solve?". 90% of the interviews are pretty much donezo by the time that question is answered (or more often not), and it feels like the rest of the time is wasted just running out the string.

Since most of the people in this thread are candidates rather than interviewers, if anyone has any suggestions about how to make the interviews more inviting and find out quicker and easier whether someone is the right fit, please let me know! I feel like I'm strugglinga bit.

I will try to offer some empathy on the other side. I have no CS background, just changed careers and I am now a junior web dev. I spent around 3 months only studying css, html and js. Then went on to build projects using React. Most of them even using create-react-app. Why would I do that if I lack a lot of very basic and fundamental CS knowledge? It was a pragmatic decision to acquire basic skills to get a job. Now I have a job where I use Ember. Now I have pragmatic reasons to acquire skills in Ember and other skills like improve my code to readability and maintainability, understand architectural decisions of the product, learn design patterns, proper use of git, doing code reviews of others. I still have important gaps in my CS education though.

I'm self-aware that there are gaps and that these gaps will cost me in the future. But, right now, I will deliver more value to the company by filling other gaps. Not only to help my company but myself, giving me better prospects in the future.

I am now investing more time in learning javascript more deeply. I bought a good book to learn more about algorithm designs. I do have trouble finding a good resource on fundamental CS concepts for someone in my position. I don't believe lengthy academic books and MOOCs have a good ratio of important knowledge by time invested.

I have this impression that I am not the right fit. If you wanted to screen me out there is an easy way to do that before the day: ask for a CS degree with good grades. I think it will be a mistake, but maybe is the right thing for you.

The fact that you're learning about design patterns, architecture, and even (ugh, ok they still have their value, but hardly) algorithms, means that you'll be a great asset to a company.

Don't undervalue yourself. Many devs I've encountered without any formal training have no interest in learning design patterns, good architecture, and (ugh) algorithms...but not only do you know that the value is in learning these concepts, you are actually taking the next step and learning them. If you steer the interview in a direction of design patterns and algorithms, and showcase that you have knowledge on it, you'll stand out.

We are also interviewing at the minute and I can't believe how low the bar is for people to claim they are software developers.

I'm sure these learn to be a web developer in 8 weeks courses don't help, but even people with years of experience seem to be absolutely hopeless.

Maybe it's you, in asking irrelevant questions for their experience and/or the role. As touched on by OP.

Asking for a C# developer with more than a few years experience. They can't do a simple Console app to read the contents of a file and create a collection of objects from the read data. They don't understand async / await, they don't udnerstand (or in some cases have never heard of) dependency injection, inversion of control, unit testing, mocking etc. Some from the tests they return don't understand even basic things like encapsulation.

That's not even getting into web stuff.

The console app they can do in their own time as well, so it's not even like we are asking them to code in front of us at the interview.

This is people who are currently working as developers as well, not graduates. People who claim to have experience in the field. It's mind boggling how they got employed at all.

Sounds like you are not offering enough or have a poor recruitment consultant

The company I worked for had an awful recruitment arrangement resulting in poor candidates. Company committed long term with a service provider, who at some point could simply afford to stop caring about quality or competence or even any number of available candidates. They were basically farting out once a week a CV of a person with embedded programming experience for a web development opening. It didn't help that we were trying to find short term subcontractors on below market rates (it's EU so the rates would be actually funny for someone from US or even London). Not fully aware of the whole process I was thinking "if this is what the candidate market has to offer, I could find a job within 3 days".

Well it happened that couple of months later I indeed ended up looking for a job... and... YIKES!

Sometimes in an interview its better to just say "This is not the right job for me" and end it yourself. I've done that a few times now for various reasons. Sometimes simply just because I know I probably wouldn't like to have the interviewer as a Colleague or Boss.

If I thought I was interviewing for a Django/Python job and they completely changed the job description on me I'd have probably cut it right there. You can't just completely change the job someone is interviewing for from under them.

I definitely feel you on it though, I'd much rather earn less in a comfortable job where I'm happy than go through the stress of interviewing and having to refresh my knowledge of CS trivia so interviewers can throw a few at me.

>they completely changed the job description

>the stress of interviewing and having to refresh my knowledge of CS trivia

I was recently visiting a friend from uni, he wanted to start working in a bigger company, so he took his chances on Amazon (they had office 10min walk from where he lived). He applied for Java/C++ backend role with some indication that's related to robotics.

First week interviewer told him to refresh knowledge from basics of machine learning, searching algorithms and path finding, so he spent all weekend reading wikipedia and our notes from uni. During the interview he was asked questions about his experience with JS, Angular and CSS. What interesting JS projects he did and why links to the projects are not in his CV.

He graduated with second best grade at the uni with a major project from autonomous sailing robot and failed interview in Amazon because he didn't do anything hipsterish with Angular on Github. I showed him link to the FACE of Amazon to cheer him up... and it worked, he decided not to apply there any more. What a waste of time.

For the interested, this is the page referred to: https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/

Interviewed for a large tech company a few months ago just for the sake of it. (VP of engineering role), corporate headhunter persuaded me to take the call even though I'm happy where I am.

5 minutes into the job interview the guy seemed very obsessed with my direct reports number. I have 12 engineers currently (CTO), have worked in China with 30 engineers reporting to me and in my previous life as a school principal I had 40+ staff and a few hundred students. With many other software roles in between around the planet.

Anyhow, it seemed that the position was not a good fit, they were recently acquired, the founders had all left and a new management team had taken over. Multiple interviews were expected as well as attending their office on-site on the other side of the planet. Ended the call once I heard this and told them this was not the right role for me. Have to be respectful but not every position is a good fit for the candidate. Trust your gut especially if red flags are raised. The guy conducting the interview seemed a bit shocked that i bailed on the process so quickly. Ain't no-one got time for the commitment some interviews require some days.

I interviewed for one position where it was C# and SQL.

Come interview technical test, they start asking JS questions. I asked if their would be JS in the role, as it wasn't specified anywhere, I've never done JS, don't want to do JS.

They sorta dodged the question a bit and continued to ask me JS questions. Which was pointless as I had no clue.

The whole interview they both sat their looking incredibly smug adn the whole interview had a definite sense of hostility and them trying to prove they were smarter than me.

I let the recruiter know straight after that I had no intention of going back for a second interview.

> "This is not the right job for me" and end it yourself. I've done that a few times now for various reasons.

I think this is the only weapon the interviewed person has. Not applying is not a solution as it will lead to even more disconnection. Apply, talk with people, disconnect when the bullshit level is too high.

Looking for years of experience in your exact Angular/React stack? Cheerio.

> Looking for years of experience in your exact Angular/React stack? Cheerio.

Yes, I don't understand that kind of thing either. Getting up to speed on something like React takes, what, a week or two? Frameworks are the easy bit of development.

I think a lot of it is HR departments and maybe even management themselves gold-plating the requirements in an effort to feel like they are contributing to the process, and possibly even justifying their own positions by "adding value".

You're not alone - I feel the same way, and from what I can gather there are lots more that identify with this sentiment.

From what I've read, the common advice is just to keep slogging away and not let the terrible interviewers get you down. Which doesn't seem particularly helpful.

I personally avoid any interviews like this and simply end any interview that starts going down that path. Fortunately, I work for myself and currently have no problem getting work through networking and take-home projects to showcase my skills. But I am fearful of if (when) I have to interview again for full time positions because I know how awful it is.

Anyways, I feel your pain. Know that you're not alone, and I'm reasonably confident that you're a solid programmer!

"I have published code all over. I code 10+ hours a day, even on the weekends. I get hammered in technical interviews."

Yes, yes, and yes. I've been meaning to blog about this experience (as an update, after last touching on it a few years ago). But I wanted to blog from a position of triumph. You know, "now that I've beaten the coding challenge I can say with conviction what is wrong with the coding challenge". That sort of thing. Except it's becoming obvious that I'll never beat these coding challenges, despite them being completely unsuitable for the role being advertised.

Apart from now, I hit the job market about 2 years ago, and before that another 2 years ago, and there seems to be a lot more of these gatekeepers around now who favour irrelevant coding challenges. Are German or French language teachers rejected on some obscure piece of Latin taught 10 years ago in college, but can't recite perfectly anymore?

The current crop of gatekeepers in tech seem to be a really bizarre mix. I'm having the hardest time in trying to find work this time, despite being more skilled, and having more people skills (hopefully). I'm at a loss.

You might be onto something with people trying to protect their jobs by using these obscure challenges to filter out suitable candidates. It's some kind of negligence. I don't think it's me, or you, but I feel like I'm going crazy. I can do the job, well I think, but the interviews (and perhaps the interviewers) aren't suited to filling the role.

Amen.

I'm a data scientist in healthcare with approaching 10 years of experience (since, you know, people were doing "data science" since before "data science" was a thing, they just called it epidemiology, biostatistics, or biomedical informatics). I had two recent interview experiences that left a really crappy taste in my mouth.

One was at Grail. Recruiter contacted me. I have a biology background from undergrad, but little direct experience in that field since then. Recruiter says that's totally fine, they were happy with even a little bit of bio experience and would happily get people up to speed after that. In my five panel interviews, they literally all asked the same technical question. Literally all of them. Asked the same question. The exact same question. It was a question related to a project that they had all worked on previously, and required some biology knowledge specific to this problem. I did not get that question right. However, by the fifth time I was asked that question, I had surmised enough tidbits from the previous four times that I could piece together a decent answer. No response from the recruiter (which was fine by me, as I assumed there was our opinions of each other were mutual). Well, until three months later, when I get an email saying they had long considered my application and would not be moving forward. Uh huh.

Second experience was at one of the big companies. Recruiter contacts me about a very specific role that seems perfectly aligned with my background. It's a new team, there isn't a job description for it. I've previously chatted with this recruiter and some of the folks on the team, but timing never worked out (or, alternative theory, an ex had been working on the same team and would not be ok working together). They bring me in, and the technical screen is done by someone from a totally different part of the organization. This person apparently does a lot of signal processing. I have never done signal processing in my life, and it's not something that's on my resume. I'm very open with that, and yet all of the technical questions he asks me are ones involving signal processing techniques. Recruiter tells me that I "didn't have enough data science experience" for that job. I almost snapped back (but didn't; not worth burning bridges) that I was surprised they would even know that, since they never asked any questions that tap into my data science skills. Someone screwed something up in that process, and it wasn't me — if signal processing is required for that job, then I should never have been a candidate; if signal processing is not required, then I should never have been quizzed on it. There are plenty of studies that show unfavorable answers to irrelevant questions tend to negatively bias perception of candidates.

Being set up for failure really blows. If I could redo everything again, I would ask recruiters more questions about the interview process and how that process lines up with job requirements; I would not be shy with the interviewer or recruiter if I felt like I was being judged on something that wasn't in line with my expectations ("I noticed that you're asking a lot of signal processing questions and not questions around things I have experience with — is that a core aspect of the job? I'm not sure I would be a good fit if that's the case, otherwise I'd love an opportunity to demonstrate my skills that might be more relevant"); and I would not be shy about cutting an interview early, as it saves everyone's time.

Some five years ago, I was having a phone interview for a company that were looking for people specializing in embedded programming with solid knowledge of OS internals and assembly. It seemed a great fit for me as that was what I have been doing since the start of my professional career.

As soon as the phone call started, the interviewer asked a puzzle question which had absolutely nothing to do with what I would eventually have to do if I got the offer. Bemused, I promptly solved the puzzle. He went on to ask three more puzzles after that. I solved each one of them. Now, it had already been 20 minutes into the interview and not one relevent question had been asked. I was getting a bit edgy.

He then went on to ask me textbook questions like difference between a process and a thread, types of memory management and so on.

It was one hour into the interview and he hadn't asked meaningful question that could justify the lofty requirements they had mentioned of their desirable candidate in the Job description.

When after around 1 hour, he asked me another puzzle, I politely asked him the relevence of that question with respect to the job. He told me that since he was the one interviewing me, he got to decide what was relevent and what was not.

I told him that I would like to end the interview right there. He protested. I hung up.

If I was really pissed of id have written to the CEO and HR director pointing out that there procedures needed "some improvement"

I almost did this after a disastrous interview at AKQA a while back.

Unless you were offered the position and declined it that would always be ascribed to sour grapes. Regardless of merit.

No Gross incompetence and interviewer wearing such a soiled and scruffy t-shirt I would not use to do the gardening.

I think this interviewer was not that bad actually. He checked your problem solving skills, and he ensured you knows some textbook basics. That's fine. Thats what we do too: In the first interview ensure the candidate satifies the minimum requirements, and is a problem solver.

I think that the scope of the interview should have been more explicit in such a case - up front, ideally: "this is a first-level interview, I expect it to take an hour and a half; if you're successful, we will get to the specifics in the next one." Without an introduction, an hour of general quizzes would seem excessive to me.

OTOH, if the recruiter reacted to this expectations mismatch with an equivalent of "no explanations are given", I would have bailed, too: the interview is a two-way street, and both sides are interviewing - "do I want to work in such a company culture as evidenced by the recruiter"?

You are getting downvoted, but I agree. A first phone _screening_ is meant to discard candidates that are clearly not a good fit for the role. Lots of small technical questions are a good way to go about it.

Once you bring the candidate onsite you can ask deeper and more open questions. A phone is simply not a good medium for this.

Interviews aren't only for the company to get a feel for you- it's also your chance to get a feel for the company. Would you want to work with someone who talked over you? How about someone more interested in boosting their own ego than doing their job (interviewing you)?

If the company thinks this is the person best qualified to judge applicants, you're dodging a bullet.

If the company thinks this is the person best qualified to judge applicants, you're dodging a bullet.

There are so many reasons this is a bad way of thinking.

- A sample size of one is never enough. This alone is enough of a reason.

- The interviewer could have normally been a great person but been having a rough day (maybe some personal stuff or a huge deadline coming up - every company has those every once in a while, you might have just got them at a bad time)

- The original interviewer had to cancel last-minute (call from the hospital/school, car crash, etc) and the company decided that it would be more professional to put you with someone with less experience than cancel thirty minutes before your interview (which could be good or bad depending on how you see it)

I'm not saying that you're completly wrong - it's definitely an indicator that the company may not be one you want to work for. But you shouldn't rule out a company because of one bad interview.

I guess the onus is on the company to fix these things rather than on interviewer.

Let's say the candidate behaved in this way, should the company ignore it?

The company probably won't ignore it, but they also might have missed out on hiring the best candidate for the position. Just like how you may miss out on the best career move.

I'm ruled out after one bad interview. Why should I extend a company any more courtesy than it extends me?

Don't worry about "getting even" with a company. If a company is the best fit for you out of all the companies you interviewed at, you'd be doing yourself a disservice to cancel your application.

It's not about getting even. The company needs me more than I need the company.

Make friends. If they're inexperienced, it's your opportunity to manage the interview and establish a rapport that an experienced interviewer might not allow, or might discount. Someone who belittles like that is afraid to encounter someone who "really" knows their stuff and the right words can lead to their imitating you instead of intimidating you.

Why would a more experienced interviewer not allow or discount a good rapport? I've spent my fair share of time on both sides of the interviewing table (or screen, in most cases), and have always sought to spend the first ~20% of the interview building rapport.

I think the candidate's ability to communicate about non-technical matters is important, and if you can put someone at ease, you're likely to get a more realistic view of their abilities.

Here's the secret: Don't apply for those jobs and cut your losses short by finishing the interview yourself and walking out.

TL;DR: Bad interviews are a strong, pretty reliable symptom of a lack of good company culture.

What few people understand is that interviews aren't just for the employer, they are also your chance to choose who you're working for, what you get to know and how to progress your career. Your colleagues are the people who you will regularly spend more time awake with than your spouse.

They say "you don't leave a company, you leave a boss" — and it's true. Interviews are exactly the other side of this coin: You will usually sit across the table of your future boss. So choose well, as your choice will have a profound impact on your wellbeing for next few years, impacting work-life balance, chances and hirability afterwards.

Don't screw it up and just politely leave as soon as possible.

Normally, I also reject companies that have bad interviewers - it means that the rest of the people they actually hire are likely below average as well. Which also means poor growth, poor salary growth for you, and likelihood that you'll have to lift some of your colleagues' weight as well.

Sometimes it's just the recruiting dept that's bad. I've interviewed with one company, where the recruiters were quite incompetent and insecure. Forms were extremely long, including personal things like t-shirt size and education level of siblings.

But the company was quite good. It was just a side effect of a rapidly growing company not hiring the right people for those slots. People who filled in those forms just treated it as another hurdle and the tech team still remains awesome.

Wait, they honestly asked you about the education level of your siblings? This is the most SVesque thing I've heard all year.

One of many questions. It was more like spouse, children, parents, siblings and then a table of age, job, education level. They made it look something like it's asking for emergency contacts.

I'm sure they asked pregnancy status too. Also I've heard some forms will even ask your spouse's race and religion.

Very personal questions are normal where I live, but there's no law that says I have to answer them.

I had the exact same problem with an interviewer recently. He came in with a preconceived notion to reject and kept moving the conversation towards that.

He was interviewing me for a Sr. Engg role , and his first question was what is the difference between Server side and Client side scripting. I took it in good humor and answered him. He stunned me by saying "That's not what I was looking for. You should have just said server side scripting runs on the server and client side runs on the client" :P

I know I should have hung up there, but I was referred by a friend so had to sit through the entire hour.

Ahh so JavaScript is just Java which runs of the client as well.

My worst interview ever was the head of HR for a Fortune 500 company that transferred to the Non-Profit side of the company. The job was working with non-technical and working with children. My interview was very invasive. I had two private investigators looking into my past, an interview at home that included my wife and two children and medical examination and physical test.

I arrived at the final interview and waited 50 minutes. Then the two people doing the interview never even read anything about me and came into it cold. I was prepared for a very detailed interview and instead I got ambiguous questions and when they asked me questions they actually reflected back what they heard and it was 50% just wrong. I corrected their mistake and the person gave me attitude. Later in the interview the person read their notes and he wrote down what was factually inaccurate that I corrected before. I corrected the inaccurate statement again and he was beyond pissed. I didn't get the job. When I was called I said to the person who I was in contact with for the whole 9 months that it was the worst interview I have ever had and made me look very negative at the whole experience. He just acknowledge what i stated and stated sorry. I still get request to reapply. I still might.....

I think that commentators on this page have got this one completely wrong. It is important to let inexperienced engineers have a say in the recruitment process because they are the ones who will be working under you (right when you join or maybe in 6-12 months)!

Just to give an example, in one of the onsite interviews at a big tech company, I was interviewed by someone 1-2 years out of his undergrad. He asked me to solve a puzzle. Though I am not a big fan of puzzles, I answered it to the best of my ability. Then the conversation turned into what work he is doing and how he was getting frustrated on not having any meaningful projects. I gave him some standard career advice - do a side project that will improve the efficiency of your team (a new build system, test integration, wiki, etc.) and discussed higher education options. Both of us were happy by the end of interview. In addition, it also allowed me to catch a breath between the many back-to-back interviews.

OK, but if he's junior, he shouldn't be telling you your answers are wrong. If he does, he's not the kind of person you want under you.

Completely disagree. In most of the companies, unless it is a strict hierarchy, a 'junior' should be able to tell a 'senior' that his approach is wrong or propose a different solution. Now the 'junior' might be correct or incorrect, that is why the 'senior' should be a level-headed person so that he/she can recognize his/her mistake or correct the 'junior' without insulting him/her.

If a company can't spare the time of a senior team member to talk to you after some initial vetting they are probably not worth your time. I've been on the other side quite often and properly interviewing is time intense. Preparation, conducting and wrap-up can easily be 4 hours. We only assign a senior member if we think it could be a match and we need to actively persuade the candidate. So unless you really want a position, if you get an inexperienced interview partner just cut your losses and move on. Don't think too much about it and focus on the next one.

Just generally, be bolder with how you select your employer. If they don't want to know you personally, move on. If they are not interested in what you did in previous positions, move on. If they are only interested in skills you built up previously, move on (because they won't want to develop you). Etc...

Interviews go both ways. If everyone was unpleasant, then it might be representative of the culture there and you may have dodged a bullet. If it's just one round or one person souring the experience, let the recruiter know. Companies that care about their culture or image will take the feedback to heart.

I think the best way to handle it is: Sit trough the interview. At good companies you get to talk to more than 1 person, and a group of persons decide whether you get hired. If you really want to join the company you are interviewing with, then just try to get trough this interview, and try to make the best of out it. The company you are interviewing with also has limited developers time, and developers need to get an idea of your skill in a short amount of time. Try to be the nice person. Or try a different company if it gives you the bad buzz.

There's nothing you can do. Complain to the recruiter afterwards, if they bother calling you, but make sure you tell them that the particular interviewer was not good.

> Complain to the recruiter afterwards, if they bother calling you, but make sure you tell them that the particular interviewer was not good.

That would be a bad idea. The recruiter knows nothing about the OP, and probably not much about the interviewer. But the recruiter probably will be in better terms with the interviewer than the OP (or the one who is being interviewed).

So the end result would be that the OP will be considered not a good candidate because he/she complains the interviewer because it didn't went well, or at least, that will be how the recruiter is probably going to assume.

That would be a bad idea. The recruiter knows nothing about the OP, and probably not much about the interviewer

A recruiter wants to place candidates and thereby earn commissions. If they get a stream of candidates they've sent to interview at company X come back and say "the interviewer was deeply unpleasant and I would never work there" then they are going to have to react - either by raising it with the company or by stopping wasting time by sending candidates there in the first place. No candidates placed == no money.

This. Know thy recruiter, they can hand pick your interview loop with better interviewer.

but why? if you hold a grudge - why help them?

Look somewhere else.

If company X has inexperienced interviewers, then company X almost certainly has other problems. Inexperienced programmers? Inexperienced managers? Bad processes? Something, anyway, because a company shouldn't be sending people to interview who are unfit for the task.

And if you get past those interviewers and get hired, then you're going to have to live with whatever else was going on that allowed those people to be the interviewers. So I think you're better off taking those people as being a datapoint about the company. Walk away, and be grateful you found out early enough.

It is made up profession. Of course they have to make it sound and look like there is any value is HR hiring. Sure younger interviewers don't know all the tricks yet to make it sound like it all makes sense. More than once I was talking to a guy (different ones) and when they proudly say they are in HR/interviewing people I feel genuinely sorry. Bragging to be a parasite and being proud about the fact. I've been nice in this post in case anybody is wondering.

H != R.

Unfortunately I don't think there is much to do about it. The strategy I've adopted the past couple years is to just grin and bear it and get out ASAP. Even if I get an offer (not usually in these cases, because the interviewer is dead set on proving you're an idiot and they are smart), I will reject it (unless I've been through several interviews with other teammates that I enjoyed).

I guess the answer depends on how strong your desire is to work for that company and whether you consider the (annoying) interviewer representative for the place. Who would like to work with a bunch of wise-asses?! and also it depends on your mental features - like patience and communication skills.

I usually just stay friendly and see what I can do to keep the interview short.

For me an instant turn-off is live coding (I get too stressed) and pointless academic questions that have nothing to do with the things I would be doing there.

And to be honest after I experience that combo I usually give up cause that means most people there were chosen based on that.

Interviewer: Can you explain me linked list structure? Candidate: blah bla blah .... Interviewer: Great. Can you tell me where linked list structure is commonly used? Candidate: On job interviews

Linked list of buffers are pretty useful for ferrying data in and out fast when you cannot allocate a lot of contiguous memory.

Live coding and knowing why we have BigO and what it means is a hard requirement for us for senior candidates. We even dive deep into UDP vs TCP and the differences. You don't need to know this always, but if things go bad, i rather have a collegue on my side that understands this stuff.

If you have interviewing skills, reverse the interview. Take the reins and guide them through it.

Just give up.

My experience is terrible with them. There is a huge chance that they will sent wrong information about you, and you will have problems with even talking with the next recruiter from the same company.

>try to assert that your professional experience and knowledge is somehow inferior to theirs (or at least make you feel that way).

I had this exact situation happen a while ago. I applied for a front-end developer role and the interviewer insisted on asking questions about the deep internals of node. And whenever I gave a satisfactory answer he would immediately tell me an alternative answer, as if mine isn't somehow good enough. The entire interview just felt like he had to one up me at all times.

Your comment was dead. Looks like you were shadowbanned due to your previous comments. I have vouched for this one, as it seems reasonable.

Downvoting this seems strange... it’s pretty standard practice to explain why you’ve vouched for a dead comment.

Wrong audience

Reply on news.ycombinator.com