Hacker News Reader

yes, the goal is standardization of interviews, not hiring the best candidate, but it's also about signalling the cleverness of the interviewer and the company. if you're actually clever, it will be evident during the interview without having to plan for it with a pre-determined interview puzzle.

but your "zero risk" assessment is a common but unproven justification of such hiring practices. with good management, you can easily bound the cost of a bad hire to a few (tens of) thousands of dollars. it's hard to estimate the benefit of a good hire since that's an alternate reality not taken, but it's probably many, many times higher than the cost of a bad hire:

opportunity cost of losing a good hire >>> realized cost of a bad hire

(the probability of a bad hire is higher than of missing out on a good hire however, so you'd need real numbers to estimate the relative costs)

Binary tree questions probably come up as often as they do, relative to how often binary trees are actually used, because so many interview questions can be solved trivially with hash tables.

Just because you don’t use binary trees doesn’t mean Google or Amazon don’t, though. Maybe not binary trees themselves, but b-trees and similar data structures are widely used in file systems, databases, and other large scale systems that these companies routinely work on.

Also, everyone knows that companies ask questions about data structures and algorithms. If you’re have the ability and inclination to prepare for these interviews, that says something about you as a candidate. If you don’t prepare at all and then go on the internet to whine about it when you don’t get an offer, that also reflects on you.

> and 100% about companies trying to come up with a standardized, one size fits all tech interview that can be used for every position

Pretty much. We had a conversation at work about this recently, where folks were talking about how they were varying up the interview process depending on the applicant.

Some people pushed back saying we needed a one size fit all process to avoid things being unfair/biaised/etc.

When you push that to the extreme, the google process is what you get (and who gets hired is biased as hell anyway).

While it has its flaws, Ill always push hard for personalized interviews whenever possible. Look at someone's resume to see if its someone who would be useful to you, then test them on THAT to make sure they're not bullshitting on their resume.

Nope. It's just hazing. The geek version of fraternity pledge week.

The only standardization is the thud of hitting the floor due to all participants expending the least possible effort. Like a team building trust fall where everyone is too busy checking Messenger to be bothered to extend their arms.

The shared failure of institutionalized apathy.

I don't see the a contradiction between these two ideas. That last sentence, about this contributing to insiders' perception of being an elect few, describes the same kind of mentality that allows hazing to persist in organizations that do it.

>works for Google because they're such an attractive employer that they're dealing with essentially zero risk that they accidentally filter out all their qualified applicants with stuff like this

You know the founder of homebrew was filtered out by exactly this, right?

Yeah, that's the context of this thread.

I said that there's minimal risk that they filter out all qualified applicants, not that they won't filter out any of them.

“Capable of writing software that solves a real world problem” isn’t necessarily Google’s bar. It’s entirely possible that the creator of Homebrew doesn’t have the level of skill that Google requires.