Comment by Patrol8394
3 years ago
There is no shortage of swe. What I see and what I have experienced first hand is that companies, especially the more hyped/small ones, pretend to be FAANG and gets very picky when interviewing. They often employ FAANG style interview.
Now, if I really have to spend that much time prepping to interview at your unprofitable company (that most likely will go under) don’t you think that I would try my best to work at faang instead ?
As matter of fact, I was rejected at plenty of these small insignificant companies, but end up having offers as L6 at FAANG.
Be humble and you will find plenty of good engineers out there.
I know tons of good swe that don’t want to interview/ work at mega FAANG, and if I was running a business I would definitely try to attract those talents by being different. Offering a “normal and reasonable” interview process along with better perks, flexibility and wfh.
Instead, they all want to run bizzilion of micro services in k8s
I definitely think "we do not do leetcode interviews" and maybe "we only have three interviews total" would be selling points on a job posting. People who are experienced in the field don't want to go through the same hoops that newbies do just to prove they know how to write basic algorithms.
You wrote: <<People who are experienced in the field don't want to go through the same hoops that newbies do just to prove they know how to write basic algorithms.>>
I am constantly interviewing candidates for roles at my company. It seems like CVs are a complete gamble. Either some are lies, or wildy understated, and everything in between -- at all levels of experience! "[J]ust to prove..." and yet so many can not do the 2022 version of FizzBuzz. I am stunned how many senior (well, so they say!) hands-on technical applicants cannot do basic things like write a very simple linked list class, or explain to me how a hash map works. For get about explaining the finer points of sorting algorithms (honestly, very low value in my line of work).
There is no reasonable alternative to testing of some kind for hands-on techincal roles -- I am flexible about method: (1) white board coding (ugh in 2022), (2) IDE/text editor on shared PC / video chat (meh / eh in 2022), or (3) take home (the best in 2022, even if there are drawbacks for people with families).
Joel Spolsky said it best about hiring: The goal is to avoid bad hires. Average and above are fine.
...explain to me how a hash map works. For get about explaining the finer points of sorting algorithms
I've been in software development for 15 years and being able to explain either of these things has never come up and I probably wouldn't be able to give a decent answer without reviewing the topics specifically.
15 replies →
I concede it may just be that I've been lucky, but when interviewing experienced candidates I've never really had any problem judging their competency just from discussing their past work. A little bit of back-and-forth deep dive into the technology has always exposed people who are shallower than their CV would have you believe.
What has burned me, however, cannot be tested adequately in an interview. Bad attitude and laziness. Anyone can behave well in interviews, so we've hired a few people who turned out to have a passive aggressive streak or condescending attitude that interferes with the rest of the team. We've also hired people who are really great developers ... when they work. But they're really lazy and getting them interested enough to do the work is the hard part.
Hiring is hard. I doubt I need to tell you that. There is a reason we gravitate towards hiring people we've worked with in the past, or come recommended by someone we trust.
I've had the same experience. Everyone wants you to "just look at their resume". Meanwhile, I've interviewed plenty of people with great resumes who can't solve a simple problem like reversing a string [1].
If you can point me to extensive open-source experience on projects that roughly approximate professional coding, then fine, I'd be happy to walk through your code with you instead of doing an algorithmic problem. The issue is that that's a minority of developers... most people don't have the time or desire to do extensive open-source work outside of work hours and I don't blame them for it [2]! But given that resumes are unreliable, I need to test you somehow.
[1] No, I don't ever have to reverse strings at work. But I do have to write efficient code. And if you can't conceptualize how to reverse a string then you probably won't stand a chance at more difficult algorithmic issues I often come across.
[2] I don't recall who it was, but I once heard a very well-regarded chef say that he's tired after work and so he doesn't like to cook much at home. I have zero problem with a developer doing the same with coding! Go home and work on a hobby, spend time with your family, or smoke pot and watch netflix... I care about what you are capable of at work, not what you do with your free time.
>technical applicants cannot do basic things like write a very simple linked list class, or explain to me how a hash map works
In my experience people know these things, they just don't realize that what they're doing can be described generically.
An example: If you're in an iOS interview and ask the person to describe a graph, they will get very angry and complain that this is useless knowledge and they don't need it to get the job. But if you ask the same person to describe an UIView hierarchy, they often have no problem doing so. So they _know_ what a graph is, they just didn't know it had that name.
With that in mind, my tests shows that generic algorithm questions suck and questions themed around actual features of the product are the best. If you word the question in a way that feels relevant and is familiar to developers, they will be more likely to know the answer even if deep down the solution is exactly the same as the generic ones.
Personally I do because I enjoy working with very smart people.
The backlash against leetcode is the same as backlash against other types of tests: most people are going to fail and most people don't like failing, so they blame the test.
leetcode == smart ? oO that's new
I interview many candidates at FAANG, I can easily tell the ones that have prep by just doing leetcode and the ones that knows the shit.
I couldn't care less if you can solve all kinds of complex dynamic programming challenges.
I ask coding questions that you won't find in leetcode and requires problem solving skill and good craft.
And this is because I do like working with smart people and not with people good at memorizing patterns.
5 replies →
The backlash is the same as the one against standardized testing methods in school. People that don’t fit the mold of the testing method will fail regardless of how competent they are at their actual job.
It’s good you like that I suppose, but it sounds absolutely bonkers to me.
6 replies →
I guess Sergey and Larry weren't "smart" then because they never went through a leetcode interview.
1 reply →
> "we do not do leetcode interviews" and maybe "we only have three interviews total" would be selling points on a job posting.
It depends on the job. I have had interviews that broke the mold here and were panel discussions or more job-talk experience, and I found the interviews uniquely exhausting because they required their own set of skills to study for that were different from the “leet code” style. At the extreme end were the take home projects, which I simply didn’t have time to do for every company and were extremely unattractive to me for that reason. I actually find doing leetcode style interviews for me required the least amount of prep and was the most straightforward, especially when they were structured to leave me with time to ask and talk to real engineers at the company.
Three interviews is now an "only"? Man this industry is fucked.
Basic algorithms? FAANG algorithm questions are usually far from basic.
http://they.whiteboarded.me/companies-that-dont-whiteboard.h...
I am not sure if this is kept up to date. I did interview at DoorDash and they definitely do leetcode style interview.
I agree with some of what you said, mainly this:
> Now, if I really have to spend that much time prepping to interview at your unprofitable company (that most likely will go under) don’t you think that I would try my best to work at faang instead ?
I feel the same way.
That said, my company and many others make the interview process much easier but still find it difficult to hire. I know this is a common problem, because I get bombarded with good job postings by recruiters and they are usually still there months later when I finally get around to responding.
Companies have only tested my code skills and handed me personality tests when applying for full time jobs. As a freelancer, I get one or two interviews where I talk to the architects, tech leads and managers, and that's it - either I'm in or out after that. They end up treating me as an employee anyway, so don't really know why this distinction is made in the first place, but I suspect HR.
I don't think FAANG style interviews are a good way to do it, but it is more important to be picky about hiring at a small company. If you're in a company where everybody knows everybody, then any new hire will affect the entire team. A good hire will pull the whole team up. A bad hire will negatively affect everyone.