Hacker News Reader

Comment by Apocryphon | Hacker News Reader

The current system is already gamed and virtually standardized. The only difference that official standardization would present is that applicants would no longer have to go through the Leetcode gauntlet each time they want to switch jobs, which would save a breathtaking amount of time and effort currently occupied by wasteful redundancy in the interview process.

Corporations can use that standard exam/license as a baseline and then focus their interviews on domain-specific questions and the like. The existence of standardization does not negate custom processes.

View on HN

> The current system is already gamed and virtually standardized.

This is only remotely true if you're looking at a very narrow slice of software development jobs. Those companies and jobs are overrepresented here, but remember that even in the US the majority of developers do not work at recognizable "tech companies." Much less the rest of the world.

I've been a professional software developer for over a decade, changed jobs many times, and never done an intense algorithm interview and I haven't been going out of my way to avoid them. I've even worked at some startups, though never one based in NY or SF. A handful of massive tech companies and their practices are disproportionately influential but they are not actually the norm speaking broadly.

You're not wrong, but Triplebyte exists to service that very narrow (but very well-funded, very lucrative, and very influential) segment, and so does this site, the fund behind this site, and most of the commenters in this thread.

True. Except that should be past-tense. Triplebyte existed to serve a narrow market, and failed largely because of that narrow view.

I think people really do underestimate how much FAANG and Silicon Valley practices have skewed the viewpoint of engineers and technology jobs in the United States. Not just in terms of comp, but in terms of architectural and technology approaches as well. Most of what the big guys do works for them at their enormous scales, but are plain dumb for the vast majority of companies and use cases. Yet we are all infected by the FAANG approach.

This might be a regional thing, but I have done probably around 100 technical interviews in my career (both enterprise and startups) mostly in the Bay Area and the vast majority of these involved algorithm questions that had no relation with the job function. Most were around the difficulty of "find the largest palindrome in a string" or "reverse a singly linked list". On the harder end were things like "serialize and deserialize a tree".

I'll defend this a little bit in the sense that "had no relation to the job function" is just kind of unavoidable in interviews, or at least hard to avoid without paying major costs. The only way to have an interview that even comes close to reflecting real work is a pretty long take-home, and there are good arguments for not doing those (not least that most candidates really don't want to).

But yeah, the entangling of algorithms questions and coding questions is unfortunate. They're just separate skills. Some people are excellent coders who think "big-O" means something obscene, and some people are a walking discrete math textbook who can't problem-solve to save their lives. Triplebyte split (and Otherbranch splits) the two into separate sections, with coding problems explicitly designed NOT to require any of the common textbook algorithms. It's sometimes a little darkly funny how quickly a particular sort of candidate folds when asked to do something novel that steps outside what they've been able to memorize.

I once got dinged at Facebook for using a tree serialization scheme that differed from the expected one in a way that saved linear space but made deserialization slightly harder to explain :)

> and the vast majority of these involved algorithm questions that had no relation with the job function.

Consider the problem that you're hiring a software engineer and the company has has openings in several different teams that only have the job title in common.

Do you have four different sets of problems that are related to job functions? Does the interview take four times longer? Or do you extend offers to a dozen software developers this week and then have the teams that have the most need / the applicant appears to be best suited for add the headcount there?

If you are giving the same interview to all the candidates (so that you're trying to eliminate bias of asking different questions of different people) ... would that not tend to be solved by asking more abstract questions that are then compared to an agreed upon rubric as to which candidates were "meets expectations"?

... And what if it is for one team that has one set of problems... Do you have the candidates sign NDAs so that you can show them the actual problems that you then go pursue if something leaks? And if today's actual problem is solved tomorrow (unrelated to the applicants solution ... though I've experienced some "here is some real problems we are having" and startups trying to get an hour or two of consulting time for free with no intent to hire), do you give a different interview for someone next week?

The standardized and unrelated work means that you're not accidentally getting in trouble with HR with some bias in the questions or running afoul of FSLA by having someone do uncompensated work that might be related to real things being done.

People underestimate how much cultural baggage influences things.

I'll give a very simple example. I did a few SWE interviews in 2020, and several companies did the initial screen over the phone, and the on-site over Zoom.

In both cases it was a remote interview. There was no reason not to do both over Zoom. The only reason was that the previous process was a phone interview and then an in-person onsite, and they realized they had to replace the in-person on-site with Zoom, but they didn't think to replace the phone screen. If you started from scratch it makes no sense though.

In this case, the whole origin of the Leetcode interview is "we're going to hire the smartest people in the world.". You can dispute whether that was true back in 2009 but it was certainly part of Google / Facebook's messaging. Now, in 2024, I think it has morphed much closer to a standardized test, and even if people might begrudgingly admit that, there's still the cultural baggage remaining. If a company used a third-party service, they'd be admitted they're hiring standardized candidates rather than the smartest people in the world. Which might be an "unknown known" - things that everybody knows but nobody is allowed to admit.

I definitely agree that this industry, for all of its self-proclaimed freethinking and innovation, is rife with cultural baggage. Allowing for an independent standardized interview step would defy the not invented here syndrome that many leading corporations ascribe to, that their process is best. Not to mention reducing friction for applicants (by don't repeating your Leetcode stage) is inimical to employee retention incentives, that is preventing them from shopping around for new employers. So me saying that we oughta have a standardized test to save everybody's time is more wishful thinking than anything.

This is definitely a factor. "You don't understand, we have a really high bar and we only hire the best people" is a bit of a meme in recruiting circles because you will never ever ever ever not hear it on a call.

I don't think we found it a barrier to getting adoption from companies though - perhaps because "we're a really advanced company using this state of the art YC-backed assessment" satisfies that psychological need? Unclear.

> but it was certainly part of Google / Facebook's messaging.

It entered the online cultural zeitgeist before that, with Microsoft talking about their interview processes, and indeed early interview books were written targeting the MSFT hiring process that many other companies copied afterwards.

I graduated college in 2006 and some companies still did traditional interviews for software engineers (all soft skills, and personality tests, no real focus on technology, except maybe some buzzword questions), and then you had the insane all day interview loops from MSFT and Amazon.

Back then, Google famously only hired PhDs and people from Ivy Leagues, so us plebs didn't even bother to apply. In comparison, Microsoft would give almost everyone who applied from a CS program at least a call back and a phone screen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com