As I age, one thing that I realise about interviewing: It is scary as hell. It is basically performance art. And, most nerds are terrible about public performance & speaking. Some days you are really on it; other days: way off. Every single job that I ever got in my life feels like a lucky day. Also, the tech universe is infinitely wide at this point, so somebody somewhere can ask a question that you will fail.
Since this industry is so dominated by men, it also feels like a lot of machismo. So many interviews are just a jerk dude on the other side of the table (probably working for an amazing company) that wants to make himself feel better by making me look foolish. There are too many stories to tell. I have also kept my mouth shut when interviewers were insistent about a technical point that was 100% verifiably incorrect with a simple Google search. It helps to stroke their ego during an interview. When they give you a hint, or explain a better solution, try: "Oh, that's really impressive! How did you discover that algorithm?" You are more likely to make it to the next round. The goal of interviewing is to get the offer. You can always turn it down. If you had one jerk in the interview stream, but they work on a different team, it should be OK to accept the offer.
Another thing that I say to all interviewees now: I know that interviewing is scary. We are interested in what you do know, not what you do not know. Together, we will dive as deep as possible on a few topics to find the outer limit of what you know. If we come to a topic that you don't know about (or not deeply), tell us; we will move to a new topic.
I think I read on here about the concept of successful people really just doing more things to increase their luck surface area.
In other words, you set yourself up to interview as best as you can, then make a bunch of connections and schedule a bunch of interviews, and (hopefully) at least one of those will be on a good day.
It's such a weird and, frankly, shitty way to make hiring decisions though. But at the same time, we don't have much better.
I think I read on here about the concept of successful people really just doing more things to increase their luck surface area.
The trick for me was diligently applying to as many places as possible (that were at least somewhat of a fit), and eventually coming across one where the main technical part of it was "take home". Coding and discussing thought processes on the spot for an audience isn't something I'm good at it turns out, but solving a practical problem on my own time was fine.
It's ultimately a numbers game, the more places you apply to, the more likely you'll find an interview process that fits. That is the most important thing to keep in mind--shotgun blast those applications. It's hard not to take rejection personally, but don't give up and settle for a toxic job, that's even worse.
After a while, either they will make you offers to work for them on the spot, or they will at least "fast-track" you through the interview process.
It doesn't work in all software areas (it is pretty difficult to do it if you are an embedded systems developer) but it works especially well in others (e.g. cloud)
and you suggest providing free labour for an entire year to some companies. No wonder GP hates this industry.
>For the next year try contributing to open source projects that you like and that have companies behind them.
You studied field X to work in field X, and in a job interview the "smarmy git" considering to employ and pay you has the temerity to ask you things about field X to see whether you've understood the basics of field X, can apply them, explain your reasoning, and think on your feet?
And that engenders (and I quote) hate, sadness, anger and despair?
I have interviewed a lot of people for coding jobs, and I usually try to test ability at doing things like this, and when I find someone junior who already knows how to approach problems like this, I am always very in favor of hiring them. Based on the discussion here I'm definitely not the only one.