Hacker News Reader

Comment by omegalulw | Hacker News Reader

Its not cheating but it's absolutely unethical. OP is right that they should have disclosed that they had seen the problem before. It only is that the right thing to do but also good interviewers can tell when you genuinely thought about a problem vs just regurgitated the solution.

View on HN

As unethical as the hundreds of interviewers who pretend to believe that the candidate in front of them, just somehow managed to find within minutes the solution to some programming puzzle, and not through hundreds of hours of mentoring and self-practice.

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.

I agree that interviewers asking stupidly hard questions that they wouldn't be able to figure out in an interview is a problem, but I don't see how your solution would remotely work. How would you ensure the questions are equally difficult?

If the candidate can manage the question the Interviewer should be able also. After all he/she was already hired.

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? ;-)

> If the candidate can manage the question the Interviewer should be able also.

You mean ask them the same question that they asked? Of course they'll be able to answer it. What does that prove?

Is that not what is happening, when the candidate pretends he never seen the question during the interview but in reality he practiced it before on LeetCode :-)

And I mean a different question.

Ohhh you mean the candidate should just be able to test the interviewer if they want, to see how technically capable the interviewer is?

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.

Yes that is what I meant.

I like your approach, but step 3 should see the interviewer immediately let go, to be replaced by the candidate.

I like your approach, lets go for the 17th century rules...if we accept a duel it should to death or stop when blood is drawn :-)

Whatever. It's dog eat dog, good on OP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com