Hacker News Reader

Comment by coffee | Hacker News Reader

> the company is not entirely to blame here...

I clearly hear what you're saying, and I understand your stance on it. But I can't agree with it.

The burden is on the folks hiring in my opinion.

This is not a "real life" scenario. It should be a SHORT assesment (for both parties). If you were employed within a company as an engineer and you received a nebulus spec (or no spec at all), the burden is then on you to identify, educate, and communicate.

Not during a pre-interview (for the chance and maybe being blessed enough to get a full interview with this world changing company).

View on HN

Your line of argumentation seems to argue the opposite: since it's the candidate who's the prospective engineer, wouldn't that imply that it's their job to clarify the nebulous spec?

FWIW, many of the FAANGs are famous for asking intentionally underspecified questions, and the candidate preparing properly by figuring out what's in scope and what's not is part of the scoring. But at least in an interview you're timeboxed to 45 or 60 minutes!

> Your line of argumentation seems to argue the opposite

Hmmmmm... I'd say that "my point of view" differs from yours, and does not fall in line with common group think. Cognitive biases are typically pushed back on, even when they are in your favor.

> since it's the candidate who's the prospective engineer, wouldn't that imply that it's their job to clarify the nebulous spec

Gosh, no. You have it backwards my friend. It's a real opportunity cost on your part to think like that. It's a tactic for some to offload the work onto others so they don't have to spend the time doing it.

> FWIW, many of the FAANGs are famous for asking intentionally underspecified questions

99% (or more) of the startups/companies out there are not FAANG's. They are not the litmus test on how to effectively interview. They have candidates FIGHTING each other for a position at their company. Not the other way around.

> wouldn't that imply that it's their job to clarify the nebulous spec?

Maybe, except when you try to clarify and their answer is that it's open-ended -- and yet they want something super specific in the end. And the super specific things are just one of many tech opinions and not objectively good design.

> FWIW, many of the FAANGs are famous for asking intentionally underspecified questions, and the candidate preparing properly by figuring out what's in scope and what's not is part of the scoring.

Why is this a good thing though? Why is solving riddles in a professional interview somehow ok?

This is a lot harder to do when your contact person (often a recruiter or HR person) won't be the one evaluating the code.

Even moreso if you only have nights/weekends to work on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com