He cheated more on writing a clickbait title than actually "cheating" on the interview. This is the same thing as when a kid in class thought studying was a way to cheat.
> I've struggled with this a lot over the years, but I finally decided to share my story. I don’t think I would have made it past the first round of interviews at Microsoft if I hadn’t gotten so lucky. So pretty much, my entire career is built on one amazing stroke of luck.
...which explains why they felt like they "cheated".
Also, as someone who's been tested with this kind of questions (in the math and physics fields at least), I realized many times you aren't evaluated for knowing the answer but for how you go about trying to find it even if you fail.
This particular question is close to my heart as I was tested with it as a pupil in school. The teacher wrote this on the blackboard and asked me to come over and solve it (not having any prior knowledge). After a bit of fidgeting with the chalk I stared writing on consecutive lines 1, 1+1, 1+1+1 and after a few lines it dawned on me it looks like the "lower" half of a square of side n as cut by its diagonal. So I proudly concluded that the sum is n^2/2. Which was of course wrong, I forgot to add an n/2 to that since the "diagonal" is shifted right a bit. Still got top mark and maybe it was one of those moments that set me on a path. This went on through high-school, university, post graduate studies, and early career. It was only when I was knee-deep in real work that people started to care less about how I think and more about just the end result.
Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer.
> Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer.
TFA notes that because of lack of interview prep material in 2004, even when the author knew the question before-hand, it took them days to arrive at an optimal answer. And then it dawned on them that everyone else at the job fair, who may be seeing a question for the first time, only had 15 mins in a pressure-cooker situation to solve it.
TFA also notes that the author intentionally misled the interviewer as if they were solving the puzzle then and there: I casually explained how I could simply use a mathematical formula to calculate the sum of 1 to n (like, who doesn’t know the sum(1 to n) formula?) and compare that to the sum of the integers in the array. I slowly wrote out the solution I had come up with over days of thinking about the problem, being sure to pause periodically as if I was figuring it out for the first time. I talked through my thinking and made sure I had all the proper error checking in place. I double and triple checked my syntax. My handwritten code was perfect.
Let's put it another way. If you take an exam after practicing with any kind of practice questions (something that has been done since the dawn of time and the education system) and happen to run into the same questions in the real exam, was that cheating or better targeted learning? Or if you find out about a job from a friend who works there, is it cheating because you have a significant insider advantage over people who never knew about the job?
In my opinion true cheating would have been made up of a) someone feeding them the real questions and/or b) someone feeding them the answers. It involves an unwillingness to put in effort and a premeditation that I didn't see in the story. This person was indeed in a conflict of interest but I wouldn't call them "a cheater".
P.S. If I were in that interview I would have provided the full answer almost instantly, not needing any kind of hesitation to "simulate" the thinking process. I know the answer without any relation to the interview. So there could be 2 outcomes: a) I get unfairly excluded under the suspicion of cheating justifying the need to fake the thinking to avoid this or b) I would have passed to the next stage making that whole charade effectively inconsequential.
GP's claim that TFA might be over-exaggerating it a bit for marketing purposes may also be correct, given that it was authored by an exec at a recruitment firm.
You are so correct (at proper timestamp): https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?t=211
I don't have a problem with people marketing themselves on LinkedIn - it that not the entire purpose of the site?
I do it to generate sales leads for my startup. We're bootstrapped so being able to generate leads without any ad spend or outbound sales means we don't have to raise money to grow. I used to write blog posts but they take so much longer. Hence no new posts on the blog since 2019.
Now I focus on LinkedIn. A single viral post on LinkedIn can get 2M-5M views on average. It will generate $1M-$2M in potential business for us. This way I can spend 50% of my time writing code, 45% doing CEO stuff, and 5% doing marketing.
Also, OP should have included (2019) in the title. It's kind of an old piece.
I would propose to change coding interviews to the following scheme:
Step 1:
Interviewer ask a coding question. If candidate is able to answer correctly then move to Step 2
Step 2:
Candidate asks a coding question from Interviewer. If Interviewer answers correctly go back to Step 1. If Interviewer is not able to answer correctly in 60 min, and Candidate is able to explain solution and implementation, move to Step 3
Step 3:
Interview is over and Candidate automatically qualifies for next hiring phase.
If a company decides to approach hiring with the naturally confrontational approach of, "let me find out in 60 minutes if you are smart enough to work here", I don't see why it should stop there.
After all recruiters always mention, it is good for you if you are also inquisitive, show interest in the company and ask questions :-))
Why can't a candidate also check if their future managers and the company are worthwhile to work there? It is always mentioned that a candidate is a much interviewing the company as the company is interviewing them...
Now...how many interviewers are suddenly uncomfortable? ;-)
You mean ask them the same question that they asked? Of course they'll be able to answer it. What does that prove?
And I mean a different question.
That's an interesting idea. I'd support that as an interviewer - I think the question candidates ask would also give you some information about the candidate too.
Sadly I doubt that sort of thing would ever become normal. Plus interviews already take enough time. Not sure I'd really want them to take any longer.