Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days | Hacker News Reader

Red Flags I Saw While Doing 60 Technical Interviews in 30 Days

meekg33k.dev

13 pointslorenzfx13 comments

4 and 5 are reasons enough to end an interview, or the processing altogether. A lack of interest indicates an unhealthy hiring process or at worst an unhealthy org.

I now also consider l33tc0d3 / hackerrank questions red flags, and state up front I don't participate in them. At a point, one needs to refuse allowing companies to interview one as if they're new to the industry.

What do you suggest instead of leetcode/hackerrank questions for companies to evaluate your coding skills during the interview?

Well let me reverse this question. Why are leet code questions any more effective at evaluating your ability to succeed in a job that is most likely managing yet another another crud service than say pair debugging, or api schema development or code reviewing or even discussing previous oncall/escalation scenarios followed by fizz-buzz?

Coding questions evaluate your ability to code, which is a significant part of most software engineering roles.

There are other questions I ask to evaluate other skills, but I wanted to know how to collect data about coding skills without asking such leetcode questions.

There are coding questions and there are "coding" questions. If what you say is true nobody needs to "practise" leetcode intensively for 3 months before applying for a SWE role (or have a daily routine that involves leetcoding). Yet our interview philosophy is geared towards those who are actively able to workout before doing a tech interview.

If all you want to know is to see if someone "can" code why not ask someone to write something they are familiar with and branch from there? You not only get coding but also an evaluation of maturity. Even if somebody memorized and regurgitated you can easily catch it rather than putting forward a contrived LC problem.

PS - I am actually reasonably good at LC but only seasonally as I spend 3 months working out before a job search (thanks to an amazing wife who lets me ignore my kids as I lock myself in my study). The moment i start a job my LC skills drop pitifully and yet I am able to do well at my job (if reviews are anything to go by). I wonder how?

Use of "coding skills" in the question leads me to believe that your experience thus far has been more geared towards producing code than it has been solving problems and exercising critical thinking.

Perhaps that's at the root of the follow up "what else, then?" question. It's 2021 and leetcode is a red flag of lazy hiring practices without imagination, and reflects poorly on an organization.

Why is it an either-or choice? I want a candidate who can problem solve, apply critical thinking, and write code.

I never said that coding was the only part of the interview - I asked how would you collect data about the candidate's coding skills.

There's one more I'd add to that list. Not asking for the usual stuff (e.g. references, proof of qualifications etc) after you accept the offer.

The worst three jobs I've been in did that. I found that the work culture in these companies was "impatient" and where corner cutting was the norm. They wanted you to hit the ground running and figure everything out for yourself. They were also very willing to let go of probationary staff after only a few weeks rather than give them the time to get accustomed to the job.

This is fascinating. Do companies actually reach out to references these days? Most places I have worked have policies stating that no one other than HR is allowed to give a reference for an employee, and HR will only confirm dates of employment. And I've definitely never been asked for any sort of "proof" of qualifications.

It's pretty standard where I live in Ireland, to not be asked for references would be seen as unusual. As soon as an offer is made you would expect to be asked for the details of two people they could ask to to provide a reference.

That being said companies may ask for detailed references, but in most cases all they get back is a list of dates worked - as in your experience.

As for qualification requests, I've had those about 50% of the time and mainly with bigger more established companies or those in the finance sector. A lot of Fintech companies are be obliged by their clients to do full background checks on their employees.

It is pretty standard actually even in CA. What is scary is a lot of companies are trying to use "back channels". I was shocked when some folks reached out to me asking about a scoop on former colleagues literally quoting the the "value of back channels". I never heard back when I told them politely I am happy to do so if they gave the candidate a heads up!

I noticed this was more prevalent at the unicorns (some kind of badge of honor?) Than at established big cos.

Major discussion of this article here 38 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26426602 (218 points/242 comments)

On a similar note, would you be willing to do a 4-hour take-home programming task, as part of the recruiting process?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com