Hacker News Reader

Comment by mdasen | Hacker News Reader

Why does it seem like computer jobs require such a higher standard of competence than other jobs? I've been on interviews for both computer and non-computer jobs and most of the time, non-computer job interviews really don't give the employer much to go on. Computer jobs always have questions about algorithms, data structures, and shooting the breeze about some technologies.

Is it that there are lots of people who lie and say they're computer people when they aren't (compared to the rates in other occupations)? Is it because you can't fake computers like you can fake other jobs? Is it because computer people are used to being mistreated and undervalued in a way that is unacceptable for other people? I'm really curious if anyone has thoughts on this.

View on HN

This style of programming interview is directly descendant from early microsoft. Some of the best minds in the business of making software engineering organizations cut their teeth on the topic (maybe microsoft isn't so stellar now, but how many organizations from that period are still making software that works at that scale?). Bill Gates pointed to the MS hiring strategy in particular as something that set them apart from their competitors.

However, there are lots of other fields that demand a certain level of competence for you to pursue them. Interviews at investment banks last all day, and they ask for pretty serious mathematics exams among other things. Lawyers must pass the BAR, which is fairly brutal. Actuaries must pass the actuarial exam. Musicians and dancers must audition. Aspiring professors must give a series of 'job talks', opening up their research and program to the criticisms of an entire faculty, after which they continue to meet one on one for hours at a time.

By contrast, the hours spent in Google interviews seem comparatively simple.

My brother is a classical musician, and the preparation he puts in for an addition with a major symphony are brutal. it's like a Y-Combinator startup for each audition plus he continues to play his regular job and teach on the side.

The simple truth is, some fields are performance-oriented. Either he is the best Tuba player auditioning for the chair or he goes home with nothing for his efforts.

It's because, like the sea, the computer is a wholly unforgiving bitch.

That's why I love computers. As for the sea, people were just not made to be sea-faring. We just came up with really cool ways to get around this limitation... Stupid requirement of having to do things like breath air.

People weren't made to be computer programmers either ;-) Imagine seeing a bit of bad syntax and suffering involuntary convulsions....

Why does it seem like computer jobs require such a higher standard of competence than other jobs?

They don't. If you can reverse a string in place in C, or reverse the words in a string, you can get hired at 90% of programming jobs.

After spending years focusing on such specific skills, many developers fail to appreciate the skills necessary for other jobs.

It boggles my mind when developers seriously believe lawyers, graphic designers, chefs, etc. don't require a high "standard of competence" in their own skill sets, just because they aren't e.g. messing with pointers or refactoring.

FWIW, my personal experince...

I have interviewed over 2500 programmer applicants, all having passed a "resume screening". I terminated 50% of the interviews before reaching the coding test because I knew by then that it would be a waste of time. Of the other 50%, 90% couldn't pass the simple coding test. I ended up hiring or referring less than 100.

Anyone else have similar experience with these percentages?

My sample size is much smaller, (I quit a few months after I started getting involved with hiring at my last job) but they sound about right.

It's pretty amazing how easy it is to get a degree in compsci or game development and have no programming competence whatsoever. What amazed me too was the astounding quantity of terrible CVs, even among people who supposedly have a substantial amount of experience. I used to laugh at articles telling you to spell check your application and give other, seemingly extremely basic advice, but I swear about 80-90% of applications have glaring spelling, grammar and semantic mistakes and no discernible logical structure. Come on, how hard is it to assemble a chronological list of things you've done?

Sometimes those mistakes don't come from competency of the program writer but rather the translator...

"All your base are belong to us!"

Oh, don't worry - I wasn't complaining about immigrants. I'm talking about people who (according to their CV, and by the sound of their name) had spent all their life in the UK.

One thing you need to watch out for is recruiters "reformatting" people's CVs, possibly without their knowledge, into their "house style". One candidate I interviewed happened to bring an original copy of his CV with him, it was quite radically different to what I had in my hands.

I never call people in for interviews without a phone screening. It's a waste of their time and mine.

Could it be good programmers are worse resume writers?

Perhaps if you had a different way of pre-screening candidates, something besides resumes.

Perhaps even if the pre-screening itself took much more time then scanning a resume - overall it might end up saving time?

> Could it be good programmers are worse resume writers?

Judging by myself: FSCKING YES!!!

The only thing I hate more than resume writing is Java,

This freaking "resume screening" selects best resume writers, not best programmers.

Oh come on - writing a resume is not that hard! Its two pages max, and while I agree its the most tedious undesirable task in the world, 3 or 4 hours spent on it will sort it once and for all. Then all you have to do is update it every 3 - 6 months for 30 minutes and it will always be ready to use.

Its basically just a bunch of buzz words on the skills you have, and a paragraph about your last few positions/roles.

I rather like Joel Spolsky's observation that when one is hiring one is not selecting from the population of programmers, but rather from the population of programmers without jobs. A very different prospect.

Not necessarily. Often the best candidates are the ones you have to tempt out of their current position.

how bad is it that because i work in finance, i immediately assumed the "receptionist test" meant sitting with the receptionist for 5 minutes without sexually harrassing her or trying to hit on her. so sad haha.

This methodology is so simple that it is brilliant. My favorite one was the file extension problem... of course ubuntu would solve everything. No file, no problem! I am surprised he didn't tell the receptionist to roll on the floor saying hail linux while he did a witchdoctor dance. Now only if my office had a receptionist so we can do this.

As to why computer jobs require competence, it is because any engineering position (computer, or otherwise) requires competence. Would you live in a building without knowing that it won't collapse tomorrow because the construction company didn't know how to calculate the required strength of the steel beams needed to support the structure?

A company won't go under because a secretary does not know how to make perfectly formatted word files from the get-go. Where as it will fail if a software company's key product is managed/coded by incompetence.

Having worked as a EE, I can assure you that 99.9% of software is NOT engineered. It's not even close. Truth is, if you actually took the time to properly engineer software odds are your company would fail, because basically no one knows how to actually manage it. On top of that, people have grown to accept buggy software (unless it's an embedded system, and even that's eroding).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com