TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

How to hire engineering talent without the BS

353 点作者 jesalg大约 2 年前

53 条评论

blindriver大约 2 年前
All of these &quot;this is how you hire&quot; posts are utterly worthless without data afterwards to prove that their selection process results in high performance. Does any of these posters actually correlate interview scores with performance reviews? No. It&#x27;s just people very confidently announcing their own biases beliefs without any reason except their overconfidence.<p>At least the reason why we have Leetcode questions is because Google did the research and came to the conclusion that those are were good at algorithms ended up being more successful at Google, and THAT&#x27;S why we are all suffering through LC. But now that LC has been gamed, I would love to see what the results are as to what makes a successful interview.
评论 #35036638 未加载
评论 #35036173 未加载
评论 #35036498 未加载
评论 #35041745 未加载
评论 #35040402 未加载
评论 #35037693 未加载
评论 #35036255 未加载
评论 #35036241 未加载
评论 #35036414 未加载
评论 #35038798 未加载
评论 #35038012 未加载
评论 #35039333 未加载
评论 #35048383 未加载
评论 #35036294 未加载
评论 #35036566 未加载
评论 #35038071 未加载
评论 #35040224 未加载
评论 #35038319 未加载
评论 #35039412 未加载
评论 #35037042 未加载
评论 #35078715 未加载
notmars大约 2 年前
As a startup CTO that has done 15+ years of this, I believe very strongly that your hiring process relfects deeply on the core software belief system you hold on. That&#x27;s why bureaucratic&#x2F;non-engineering organisation will tend to over-emphasize references and tests, big tech will over-emphasize CS40021 style exercises and whiteboarding &quot;shame on you&quot;, and the rest of us, other stuff. My advice for job-seeker: look very deeply why they ask things during the process and you will be able to fairly predict your future there. Make sure it matches you needs and wants. For the process-builder: are you sure those deeply-held beliefs are filtering what you need or is it filtering what you <i>want</i>...?
评论 #35036067 未加载
评论 #35034828 未加载
评论 #35035095 未加载
jzombie大约 2 年前
The next time any recruiter asks me to do a &quot;homework&quot; assignment, I will ask them to write me a 15-page essay explaining how that homework assignment will actually be used, to what extent it will be reviewed, and what criteria it will be judged on.<p>If the comeback remark is something like, &quot;if you really want this job,&quot; I will reply, &quot;if you really want to hire me.&quot;<p>My current job, I told them that I was too busy to do such a thing (and I was), and got hired anyway.<p>Nobody w&#x2F; actual responsibilities in their life should be coerced into doing something for free, for someone they do not know.<p>Will an attorney give you free legal advice until you decide they are fit to represent you, or will you get free surgery until someone proves they won&#x27;t completely butcher you? Can you drive a car for free (for 5 - 8 hours) until you decide that&#x27;s the car you want to buy?<p>Why is it any different in the software industry? Because we just clack on our keyboards all day and do nothing?
评论 #35031933 未加载
评论 #35031856 未加载
评论 #35034536 未加载
评论 #35031875 未加载
评论 #35031944 未加载
评论 #35032127 未加载
评论 #35036723 未加载
评论 #35032367 未加载
评论 #35039496 未加载
评论 #35032330 未加载
评论 #35037283 未加载
评论 #35033123 未加载
评论 #35035018 未加载
评论 #35035971 未加载
评论 #35034419 未加载
jesalg大约 2 年前
As someone who&#x27;s been around the tech industry for a while, I know firsthand all the sausage-making that goes into building a great technical hiring funnel. On the flip side, as a job seeker, I also know how demoralizing it can be to go through a broken hiring process that doesn&#x27;t accurately reflect your abilities.<p>With recent layoffs and many talented professionals on the job market, I was compelled to write a blog post about how to build an inclusive hiring culture and find exceptional engineering talent.<p>If you&#x27;re involved in your organization&#x27;s technical hiring process at any stage, I encourage you to give this a read. I share some best practices for conducting effective interviews and improving your own hiring process.<p>Let me know what you think!
评论 #35032333 未加载
评论 #35038054 未加载
评论 #35033552 未加载
评论 #35031628 未加载
0xB31B1B大约 2 年前
This misses 90% of what I, a startup CTO, find valuable in technical hires. What I want to know is: what type of projects have you worked on, how did you develop expertise in those systems, what level of ownership over your work did you display, how well were you able to plan and design the solution to a problem, and how did you handle the execution over the X months of work to make it go live. Demonstrate expertise, curiosity, and ownership. “System design” is like 5% of the work we do, and it’s important, but putting the designs in motion and driving value from them is 95% of our time and that’s something we do not screen well for. The way that I do this now is a process with a soft skills interview, a coding interview, then a “case study&#x2F;system design” interview where I have candidates write a system design doc at home for a project they have worked on IRL and use that as a starting point for a 45 minute panel convo where we review the doc and ask questions about their choices and how execution went.
评论 #35036446 未加载
评论 #35031988 未加载
评论 #35033096 未加载
评论 #35032278 未加载
ffssffss大约 2 年前
It&#x27;s not a bad post per se but we&#x27;ve been reading similar, anecdotal blogs like this about making the interview process kinder for decades. Yet the only companies in a position to do a rigorous statistical test - large tech cos - stick with the traditional, somewhat adversarial whiteboarding process. I would even suggest that a strictly technical whiteboarding process can be less biased than what the author describes, because you can so regularly grade everyone on the same exact rubric. That&#x27;s tougher when &quot;pair programming&quot; or doing a take home.<p>Also, stop giving take home projects. Bad candidates will cheat them and good candidates will not even do them. If one of the random startup names listed on the author&#x27;s site sent me a 12 hour take home project I would delete the email. Do you think they pay twice as much as the bigger company that only makes you waste 6 hours doing a whiteboard? I doubt it.
评论 #35032065 未加载
pwpw大约 2 年前
&gt; In fact, you may be doing a disservice to yourself by filtering out slow thinkers or neurodivergent candidates that are likely to not shine thinking on their feet.<p>Yes, yes, 1000x yes. I was recently rejected after two technical interviews from a company that my former principal engineer that I worked directly under had referred me to. The position was to work under them again, which is why they referred me. The feedback I got from the recruiter was that it wasn’t the result they had expected, and I hadn’t achieved a specific number on their technical assessment. My understanding of this after some discussion was that the lower score was due to my speed in answering the leetcode style questions in the live interview with another engineer.<p>Here’s the secret I never brought up with the company while interviewing: In high, school, college, and for the CPA exam, I received accommodations for extended time and testing in isolation to reduce distractions from my ADHD. With those accommodations bringing me up to an even playing field with a neurotypical test taker, I was able to get into a good university, graduate with a bachelors and masters at the top of my class, and pass all four sections of the CPA exam on my first attempt. In the real working world, I have never needed extended time. I always deliver what is asked of me on time while I have witnessed neurotypicals show up to meetings with their work majorly behind.<p>I have always hesitated to bring this up with companies because I fear they will make the incorrect assumption that extended time on testing implicates that I will be a slower worker, which I have not found to be the case. I don’t want to introduce any biases for the interviewer to pick up. For whatever reason, testing with pressures absolutely slows down my thinking. In the real world, I have found when I face particularly tough problems, I find solutions after going on a 15 minute walk outside or while taking a shower in the morning. You cannot test for that style of problem solving in these high intensity algorithm technical interviews.<p>I certainly miss having a CPA license as evidence that I was a competent individual from my previous accounting career, which allowed all parties to skip technical questions in the interview and instead focus on fit for <i>both</i> sides. The software engineering industry suffers from too great of an emphasis on absolute performance levels in my opinion. To pass a section of the CPA exam, one needs to score a minimum of 75. What do you call an accountant that passed every section of the CPA exam with 75s? A CPA.
评论 #35037401 未加载
评论 #35037067 未加载
评论 #35038951 未加载
lapcat大约 2 年前
What bothers me about tech hiring is that tech companies overthink it. To use a housing analogy, they act like they&#x27;re signing a 30 year mortgage when they&#x27;re only signing a 1 year lease. Engineers come and go all the time. At present, tech companies are laying off engineers by the thousands. Think of how much time, effort, and money was spent hiring those thousands of engineers! It&#x27;s a giant waste. Premature optimization is the root of all evil, and that applies not just go writing programs but also to hiring programmers.<p>It&#x27;s funny how they claim that a bad hire is devastating, and they can&#x27;t rid of them easily, but somehow they can do mass layoffs and get rid of a bunch of engineers easily.
评论 #35033014 未加载
评论 #35033065 未加载
评论 #35036878 未加载
lopkeny12ko大约 2 年前
A lot of the commenters in this thread (and elsewhere on HN) flat out refuse to do take-home assignments, live algorithms coding, 4+ hours of onsite rounds, etc. Yet every interview I&#x27;ve ever done in the last decade+ with FAANG and FAANG-adjacent companies have always been like this. So where are all you interviewing that pays competetively without this &quot;traditional&quot; interview loop?
评论 #35033169 未加载
评论 #35032606 未加载
评论 #35033568 未加载
评论 #35032645 未加载
评论 #35032844 未加载
评论 #35034673 未加载
评论 #35033561 未加载
评论 #35035191 未加载
评论 #35033572 未加载
评论 #35033451 未加载
评论 #35033575 未加载
评论 #35034443 未加载
评论 #35033251 未加载
sophonX大约 2 年前
You should mention, what kind of teams you&#x27;ve worked with and what kind of stuff you&#x27;ve built. Every team has different requirements and hiring bar. In my previous company the low bar caused not so good (able to understand stuff, knowledge and connect dots) people be a burden to rest of team. Heck in 2 years, 4 important people have left the team due to hiring a bad manager (has neither tech nor soft skill(s)).<p>There wasn&#x27;t growth in that team due to mediocre hiring and eventually all the good ones - left to other companies.<p>My current team is an infra platform and has lot of growth as IC. Everyone is learning something in-depth and are explorers - rather than blind sheep. The bar here is higher than the one for my previous team.<p>Our team requires you to know about whatever you talk on, not just usage but it&#x27;s internals - why ? That&#x27;s what we do daily. It can be about scheduler, checkpointing, auto scaling, concurrency, different data structures &amp; algos, integrating with ecosystem, etc.<p>Even soft skills - like helping others, taking feedback, communicating clearly, etc.<p>Yeah so, mediocre will always be a burden to team.
howling大约 2 年前
&gt; Google: 90% of our engineers use the software you wrote (Homebrew), but you can’t invert a binary tree on a whiteboard so fuck off. — Max Howell (@mxcl)<p>If inverting a binary tree means swapping the left and right subtrees of every node, I wouldn&#x27;t want to work with someone who can&#x27;t do that either and Google is definitely right to reject him.
评论 #35032173 未加载
评论 #35031957 未加载
评论 #35034910 未加载
评论 #35032042 未加载
评论 #35033987 未加载
评论 #35032296 未加载
评论 #35032003 未加载
snozolli大约 2 年前
Since it mentions the infamous interview challenge, I&#x27;ll ask: has anyone ever &quot;inverted&quot; (i.e. swapped left and right recursively) a binary tree in production code?<p>I can&#x27;t think of any reason why anyone would ever do this. Just navigate the tree in the reverse of your normal direction instead.<p>Why not ask the much more interesting and potentially <i>useful</i> question of balancing a binary tree? Or do something else recursive, if that&#x27;s what you&#x27;re after.
评论 #35032000 未加载
评论 #35046053 未加载
评论 #35032468 未加载
评论 #35036968 未加载
评论 #35057103 未加载
评论 #35032368 未加载
dennis_jeeves1大约 2 年前
Let me mention the elephant in the room:<p>You the candidate, did not get the job because they did not like you ( e.g. you had a voice similar to the kid in school who was bully to your interviewer etc.). For most software positions out there, a relatively mediocre level of skills is sufficient. No fucking need to hair split on a person&#x27;s technical skill.<p>If you truly care about the candidate first judge him on the &#x27;cultural&#x27; fit. If he has crossed that barrier then the following advice from the article is a great one:<p>&gt;Give candidates a heads-up about the attributes or topics the interview will cover and any other information you can reasonably share upfront.<p>All other advise in the article like paid assignment etc. are also great.
评论 #35036750 未加载
评论 #35038139 未加载
jedberg大约 2 年前
We need an industry agreed-upon certification exam.<p>When you apply for a job as a doctor, they don&#x27;t make you demonstrate surgical techniques. They take your board certification and ask you questions about what you&#x27;ve done in the past, things that went wrong and what you learned from that experience, and so on. They just assume you have the technical skills if you have the license.<p>Now, I&#x27;ll admit that with doctors you are legally <i>required</i> to have the license, and we certainly don&#x27;t need to go that far. If a small startup wants to take a chance on &quot;unlicensed software engineers&quot; or even offer to pay for the exam as a job perk (like a lot of law firms do for their interns), then great! But I can see a lot of time and effort saved if all the big enterprises would get together and come up with a national certification exam that you take once. Or even better, a series of exams for junior&#x2F;senior&#x2F;staff&#x2F;principle, so neither candidates nor hiring managers have to waste time on tech assessments.<p>One of the keys would be making the exam inclusive for neurodivergent candidates, people with disabilities, etc. But this can be solved.
评论 #35035123 未加载
评论 #35035116 未加载
评论 #35035352 未加载
评论 #35035156 未加载
评论 #35035122 未加载
评论 #35035114 未加载
评论 #35035758 未加载
评论 #35036788 未加载
评论 #35035177 未加载
评论 #35038981 未加载
评论 #35035471 未加载
评论 #35035604 未加载
throwway234321大约 2 年前
My primary programming languages are not allowed in leetcode interview sessions so a lot of the challenge is remembering how to use Ruby or Python on the spot, and also to think imperatively.<p>Lot of my thinking is based on visuals and emotions -- It&#x27;s challenging for me to transcribe to English on demand and it interrupts my process -- it&#x27;s somewhat like painting.<p>I always shine on take-homes since I&#x27;m allowed to be my authentic self. I&#x27;m enabled and have the full capacity to do my rituals, routines, and quirks.<p>Admittedly, this means I won&#x27;t succeed in cooperative environments like pair programming. I&#x27;m better off left to my own devices.
Uptrenda大约 2 年前
Tbh the way that hiring is done in tech is just lazy and reeks of mediocrity. Memorizing &#x27;take home&#x27; assignments, banks of algorithms, pair coding, white board interviews, what a joke. Companies want to place all the burden on candidates and spend as little money as possible. It doesn&#x27;t matter if they waste people&#x27;s time.<p>Whatever happened to getting to know a candidates work? How about look into the work that a person has done and take the time to understand where a person&#x27;s skills are. The problem with tech hiring is we have people trying to cut corners. So-called &#x27;non-technical&#x27; recruiters doing interviews with a checklist, companies that treat people like hoop-jumping monkeys, and generally f*king idiots that won&#x27;t do their job (they get paid for it, why again? They&#x27;re not actually doing their job.)<p>Hiring is not a complex problem. The problem is literally incompetent people doing hiring.
Keyframe大约 2 年前
On a smaller size (company) it&#x27;s relatively easy: pay well, don&#x27;t oversell the position, send a small assignment representative of work and give them ample time to solve on their own OR ask for references you can talk to from previous workplaces.<p>Game changes if you actively contacted someone.. if you&#x27;re no BS, assumption is you know who you contacted and why, hence only thing to do, once contact established is not to oversell and pay well.<p>Pay-well can constitue compensation as well as time.
Zetice大约 2 年前
This is focused on finding technically skilled engineers, but I think you can get a more wholistic (holistic?) view of the person by asking them to walk you through their work history, project by project, and call a subset of the people they’ve worked with.<p>It’s more conversational, and you don’t have to live in hypotheticals.<p>We all know that skilled engineers will learn whatever skills they need to on the job, so less and less am I interested in what they can do in the interview pressure cooker.
humanrebar大约 2 年前
If you really want to hire engineering talent, paying above &quot;competitive salary&quot; is very important.<p>It&#x27;s a bit orthogonal to the concerns in this article, but in some ways it&#x27;s much more important.<p>What I wonder about is given an org that is able and willing to compensate at market clearing rates, how do they get the word out well enough to get engineers interested. Because the other big BS in hiring is the whole recruiting side of things.
sokoloff大约 2 年前
&gt; the best experiences were when the interviewer wanted me to succeed, was emphatic<p>I assume you mean empathetic. Same word is spelled “Emphethatic” later. (I tried finding a way to reach you privately, but your site “about” says you have contact methods on the left but, on mobile, there is no left…so here will have to do.)
评论 #35032401 未加载
评论 #35065241 未加载
cubano大约 2 年前
With all the overt and hidden biases that us flawed humans live with daily, the idea that you will be able to pick really skilled devs consistently is laughable unless your doing some sort of blind interviews like symphony orchestras do nowadays.<p>It&#x27;s so blatantly obvious that interviewers are basically trying to hire themselves, and will almost always select candidates whom they share the most personality traits with.<p>Also, I see the hiring process as similar to wanting to be a politician ie anyone who really wants to be one and is just really good at it should never be given the job.<p>The people who impress you the most almost surely have simply put a ton more effort into <i>gaming the process</i> with long leetcode sessions, live interview practices, and other bullshit tricks to convince you that they are the best person to hire.<p>With so much as stake, why wouldn&#x27;t young devs spend tons of time working on interviewing skills and not really giving a damn about developing the real skills needed to be a goto resource at Big Software?<p>It&#x27;s very much like taking steroids in professional sports...well no shit your taking PEDs when your career paths are either making generational wealth fucking with a ball or working selling Jordans at the local shoe store.
logicalmonster大约 2 年前
Mostly good article: and totally agree that leetcode style interviews under intense time pressure are a wasteful plague on the industry. A good web developer could go through a bunch of interviews without ever once discussing designing APIs, HTTP requests, web security, or any one of a 100 practical topics which they deal with nearly daily, but might be asked to solve a pile of different leetcode questions (99% of which are close to irrelevant for the vast majority of typical day to day web-development).<p>If I could give one minor persuasive writing critique to the author of this article though, I&#x27;d suggest not emphasizing inclusivity (which is basically bog standard, meaningless corporate drivel by now), but emphasizing that changing the typical interview pattern ensures that you&#x27;re casting the widest possible net for talent. There&#x27;s business people out there that couldn&#x27;t give half an ounce of care for doing a solid for whatever the heck they might think a neurodivergent is, but if you emphatically frame this a bit different (solely as the company missing out on talent) I think the argument instantly becomes a lot more appealing to a pretty large group in the business world.
MPSimmons大约 2 年前
I have found success by doing the following (when hiring for an engineering role):<p>1) Doing a relatively shallow but wide survey of the technology I&#x27;ll expect them to be responsible for. Because we use k8s, I steal the old &quot;type google.com into your browser&quot; question and make it, &quot;I type &#x27;kubectl get pods&#x27; and hit enter. What happens to make the list of pods show up on my screen?&quot;. From there, you can dive into basically any part of the stack you want.<p>I&#x27;ll often ask them to explain to me what the difference between a container and a VM is, as though I were an intern, and then I&#x27;ll ask probing questions about things they get wrong or things they leave out that I think are relevant.<p>This isn&#x27;t to pass&#x2F;fail them, necessarily (though some people have done so badly that they essentially failed themselves), but it&#x27;s to see where their familiarity and comfort level is with the tech at hand.<p>2) talking through their resume with them, and doing a deep-dive into a couple aspects of their recent history - why did they do a thing? What alternatives did they explore? What was the reason they went with what they did? How did they implement it? What problems happened? Who did they collaborate with and what was the precise scope of their involvement? How did they measure success, and what was the follow-up?<p>I don&#x27;t expect anyone coming in to have a deep knowledge of the tech stack we have. I do expect someone to have deep knowledge of the technology that they put on their resume, though.<p>My hit &#x2F; miss rate is pretty decent. There have been a couple of times that I said no when I should have said yes, but I&#x27;m okay with that ratio.
einhverfr大约 2 年前
Generally good tips, but I have noticed a few other things too.<p>1. If there are challenges, particularly if they are take home tests, it is important to make these reflect the sort of work someone will do without raising concerns that the work will be used by the company without pay. Candidates will spend time on relevant challenges and be happy. They will not be happy about irrelevant challenges. And interviews go both ways.<p>2. Dispense with &quot;good questions&quot; and go instead with &quot;what do I want to know about a candidate.<p>3. Ask yourself before you start hiring, &quot;What makes those who are successful at this company successful?&quot; And from there, start building your interview structure.<p>Not every company will be the same, or will be good matches for the same candidates. The key should be to figure out what you need and use the interview to determine if the candidate actually is a good fit.<p>Unfortunately this cannot have data because it relies on a bunch of human judgment calls.
sam0x17大约 2 年前
A lot of people are in the &quot;if I could just hire right I&#x27;d be fine&quot; camp when they should be in the &quot;why is the way I&#x27;m trying to build this stupid&quot; camp. Address the root problem, go in with the assumption that it will be easier to start over from scratch and rebuild with 3x the productivity based on what you&#x27;ve learned about what _doesn&#x27;t_ work, and it will be easy to find people who want to work on your app&#x2F;platform&#x2F;etc. I&#x27;ve advised far too many mid to late stage startups where what they really need is to just take what they&#x27;ve learned, rm -rf, and quickly build something that works now that they&#x27;ve gone through the growing pains, and far too many have taken this option later than they should have.
评论 #35039009 未加载
heldrida大约 2 年前
Hiring...my partner had an interview booked for a Friday at 5pm. The interviewer didn&#x27;t show up. My partner end up emailing the person, whom apologised and then jumped on a 10m call, 10m before 6pm. My partner, as I do, spend a lot of time researching the company, preparing for the interview, etc.<p>How many countless stories like that exist?<p>For example, people messaging for a chat &quot;found your work on project X and saw your github account and found about your past projects, we are looking for some one like you&quot;, then on the day &quot;oh sorry to let you know last minute but X and Y happened&quot;.<p>Bunch of time wasters! This is the reality!<p>Once in the job, it&#x27;s funny to see who actually does the work. Zero contributions for days, etc.<p>There are a lot of people out there handling these processes and they are bad, really bad!
评论 #35035370 未加载
Scubabear68大约 2 年前
While this seemed to start strong, I don’t buy into the “structured” portion of this blog post. The referenced research does not seem relevant to hiring engineers. In fact, the opener for the first reference says they researched “ 19 male applicants for life insurance sales”positions”. This is a “mountain” of evidence in hiring engineers?<p>My own interviews have a list of topics I want to cover (non functional requirements, data experience, app design, infrastructure, etc), so I guess there is some structure. But I mostly run the interview based on their own experiences and projects they have worked on. So we will focus on applications and systems they have worked with in the past. And then I see how deep down those rabbit holes of their own system they can go.
mouzogu大约 2 年前
Dev for 16 years. The people who do the interviewing are themselves different now.<p>They have different values. Different expectations of what is normal or important. &quot;Culture&quot;, &quot;team fit&quot; and other bs.<p>Everything changes. New people come who don&#x27;t know the past.
polalavik大约 2 年前
I wish a company would run an experiment where they just higher at random from a stack of team vetted resumes. I think the results would almost be the same as being super picky.<p>Why can’t anybody trust verifiable info these days - that you worked for $COMPANY doing some $JOB for $YEARS. Why are resumes completely thrown out the window and you start from ground zero on a whiteboard when you have over a decade of experience. I wasn’t practicing leet for the last decade, I was doing actual engineering.<p>I work in aerospace which often does a STAR behavioral interview (very light to zero technical interview) and I can honestly say that I work with some of the brightest people I’ve ever met.
评论 #35036580 未加载
评论 #35036733 未加载
Nginx487大约 2 年前
For the small startups, who don&#x27;t have time for BS like leetcode, I advise asking the candidate&#x27;s code first of all. The senior-level developer almost definitely should have GitHub with his portfolio- or pet-projects. After carefully looking through his code, it becomes 100% clear do we want to talk to him or not. After that we usually had one interview, something like system design + soft-skills. Subjectively, I recall the hiring experience as very successful compared to what I experienced interviewing people for major tech companies according to their guidelines.
评论 #35040356 未加载
grrdotcloud大约 2 年前
My biggest recommendation is that those working directly with the new hire, peers, direct reports, subordinates, counterparts, have a vote or veto power.<p>HR and recruiting relationships are sparse at best.
评论 #35031783 未加载
zeroonetwothree大约 2 年前
It sounds good but do we have any evidence that this actually works? There’s so many of these speculative “how to interview” posts but it’s all just cargo culting.
mountainriver大约 2 年前
This is great, the approach I’ve seen work best in a couple orgs now is giving the candidate options. You can either walk us through and open source project you wrote, do a take home test, or do a live coding challenge.<p>There is a large diversity in how developers are effective. When you force people into one funnel you lose the rest of the ecosystem. Meet people where they are, the only metric that should matter is effectiveness
评论 #35039034 未加载
t8sr大约 2 年前
We all want &quot;inclusive hiring culture&quot;, &quot;exceptional engineering talent&quot; and a frictionless hiring process, but IMO you can&#x27;t have all three. Like them or not, leetcode* interviews actually give a chance to people who can&#x27;t do a home assignment, or come from a background that didn&#x27;t let them have a bunch of code on Github. In that sense, it&#x27;s the more fair way to test people&#x27;s aptitude, and will find exceptional talent from all kinds of different backgrounds.<p>If you still want &quot;exceptional talent&quot;, but not algorithmic interviews, then you end up biasing towards white guys who have a ton of projects to show you.<p>Actually, I think this should be verifiable. Select some companies that we think have exceptionally high bar (you could use compensation as a proxy, acknowledging it&#x27;s imperfect). Then classify them based on whether they do &quot;leetcode&quot; interviews or not, and check their diversity reports. My bet would be that the &quot;leetcode&quot; companies do significantly better.<p>* Caveat is that companies people think do &quot;leetcode&quot; actually usually ban questions that appear on leetcode.
评论 #35032314 未加载
claytongulick大约 2 年前
I have an interview process that&#x27;s both easy and hard.<p>It&#x27;s kind of a &quot;choose your own adventure&quot; style interview.<p>I explain upfront what the process will be, that during the interview &quot;I don&#x27;t know&quot; is a preferred answer than BS.<p>Then I start with this question:<p>&quot;Your task is to take some data in from a user, store it, and then present it back to the user. How do you do it?&quot;<p>Based on their answer and follow up questions, I follow them down the path of their preferred stack.<p>This is rare, but I love it when prior to answering, a candidate asks me clarifing questions, like &quot;how many concurrent users will the system need to support? What sort of performance is necessary?&quot; Etc...<p>Many just assume that I&#x27;m asking about web development, so if they go down that path I challenge their assumptions, and follow up asking about their reasoning.<p>If they pick a framework, I ask what the advantages and disadvantages there are to that framework and how it compares to others.<p>Same with databases, etc..<p>It becomes pretty clear quickly what sort of level they&#x27;re at. Many times the answer on a framework question is &quot;that&#x27;s what I used at my last job&quot;. That&#x27;s not necessarily a poor answer, but it is informative.<p>I try hard to make it a casual conversation, like the sort you&#x27;d have with a technical stranger at a bar or something, though I understand that&#x27;s impossible given the power dynamics and stakes involved. Still, I try.<p>So far, it seems to work pretty well for me. I have the luxury of keeping my team small, so I don&#x27;t have to come up with a scalable &quot;one size fits all&quot; process, I&#x27;m able to keep it personal and relevant to the candidate and their experience.
jbmsf大约 2 年前
I agree with the conclusions, though I&#x27;ve seen the structured part go wrong, e.g. the interviewer is so dedicated to following the structure of the process that they forget about the empathetic part. These interviews look more like scripts than exploration of a candidate.<p>So I&#x27;d add another criteria: interviewers need to be trained!
评论 #35031899 未加载
siliconc0w大约 2 年前
I think something like this works well:<p>0. 45 minute homework&#x2F;prescreen. Provide an (optional) pre-setup environment so it&#x27;s mostly about coding and not about building&#x2F;installing deps.<p>1. on-site where you chat about your solution, mostly an ice breaker&#x2F;introduction to the team.<p>2. pair-programming to extend the homework or work on a simplified but real problem encountered day to day, open book<p>3. design review<p>4. code review<p>5. behavioral &#x2F; case study<p>All of these can be pretty objective and don&#x27;t rely on any memorization. All this should be pre-canned so individual proctors don&#x27;t come up with their own questions and you&#x27;re comparing candidates around the same prompts. It&#x27;s amazing how few companies even manage these basic steps. I think most importantly the hiring should be done by a committee of actual practicing engineers - that means if you have checked in code in six months you aren&#x27;t a vote on the committee.
评论 #35032992 未加载
评论 #35033723 未加载
pugworthy大约 2 年前
It&#x27;s too bad it&#x27;s not a culture of interview questions to learn how well someone will work with you and your team, how much of a creative they are, a coach, a mentor, etc.<p>I&#x27;d pick someone who really clicks with the team and is smart any day over someone who&#x27;s brilliant but hard to work with.
lbriner大约 2 年前
I agree with others that these posts only have limited value perhaps to people who don&#x27;t have a clue. For those of us who have done this lots, it doesn&#x27;t really say much but it does allude to a common fallacy, that the interview itself is the most important part.<p>Other things that are actually useful to consider (others have mentioned these too).<p>1) Your company culture is important for you to know; for you to codify and for you to communicate to your candidate.<p>2) In some companies, you will have tonnes of unsuitable applicants because of your brand, you should not optimise for people that aren&#x27;t suitable - filter them asap<p>3) Your whole onboarding is a lot wider than just an interview. For many of us, we should be asking where&#x2F;how we would expect to find our candidates and optimise those places. Do we visit hackathons? Is our recruitment page(s) clear and does it articulate what we want?<p>4) Your entire process needs to be like an interative development. Did you hire a bad person? What could you change to catch that in an interview? Wrong technical questions? Not enough about comms or culture?<p>5) In many cases, a company will hire someone that comes across well even if they don&#x27;t necessarily tick the boxes so don&#x27;t assume that you didn&#x27;t get the job because you failed the whiteboard test, maybe you weren&#x27;t as good as you thought?<p>6) Candidates need to think carefully about their approach to interviews, I would say more candidates than not seem almost entirely unprepared for normal interview questions and perhaps expect their ambience will get them the job! Study, swot up, never used owasp for web apps? Don&#x27;t say that in an interview, spend 10 minutes learning about the top 10 and answer confidently.<p>7) Recruiters are in it for large commissions. They kind of care only in-as-much as getting a good reputation might help them but everything is second to money so don&#x27;t expect them to place you well, don&#x27;t expect them to sell you properly and if you get rejected, don&#x27;t expect them to call you!
dmundhra大约 2 年前
Nice article talking about the common pitfalls popularized by likes of Google and Palantir a decade or so ago. Some of these methods work if you are hiring enmasse and are ok to tradeoff identifying some outliers (like in homebrew creator&#x27;s example) to efficiency. This is one of the reasons I built nitrohire.co to be able to get more relevant information about a candidate in a different way! The basic question is why try to guess something about a candidate that their peers might already know and help you make more informed decisions
Joel_Mckay大约 2 年前
Make a sign that reads &quot;Free Starrett and Mitutoyo gifts if you like Maxwell&#x27;s equations&quot;...<p>Yes they know its a 100% a trap, but good engineers won&#x27;t be able to resist responding on the off chance it is real.<p>Don&#x27;t click this... it is clearly a trick... you already knew they never have overstock sales. yet had to click this anyways... =)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tinyurl.com&#x2F;mitutoyocoupon" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tinyurl.com&#x2F;mitutoyocoupon</a>
rqtwteye大约 2 年前
For a while my company did aptitude tests which were basically a kind of IQ test. Between good results on this kind of test and having a good conversation in an interview I felt there was a very good correlation for doing well on the job. I value this higher than specific knowledge. I feel smart people that can communicate and get along with others will usually deliver high performance.
评论 #35037196 未加载
warmcat大约 2 年前
Question for the greater HN community? Would it help if software engineers demonstrate their skills on an ongoing basis via a third party which accesses them periodically without the pressure cooker environment of technical interviews and companies just do cultural fit type of interviews based on the previous assessments of their technical skills?
评论 #35042718 未加载
hello_moto大约 2 年前
And the adventure to fix the issue of ENG interview saga continues...<p>&quot;Process is broken&quot; continues to be the theme where no parties agree whether a basic algo or leetcode or takehome is sufficient yet continuously reject professional designation.<p>Folks, keep in mind that at the end of the day, you are hiring a person, not an object with a bunch of methods.
jl2718大约 2 年前
&quot;invert a binary tree&quot;<p>This didn&#x27;t make any sense to me, so I looked it up, and it seems exactly as senseless as I had thought. Is the &#x27;inversion&#x27; not the same topology as the input?<p>my solution: &quot;auto invert(regular_tree x){return static-cast&lt;inverted_tree&gt;(x);}&quot;.
评论 #35037557 未加载
评论 #35040429 未加载
reverseblade2大约 2 年前
The sad fact is usually your assumed nationality, your assumed gender, your skin color (not necessarily being white is always good), your assumed origin and assumed religion matters more.<p>Depending on these, you end up with different attitude and questions.
matt3210大约 2 年前
I interviewed at a startup with ex Amazon employees as founders, and they had some crazy systems design and a leet code style challenge. I ended up doing entry level, basically data entry, work for 6 months before leaving.
orangesite大约 2 年前
Good jobs have friendly practices, bad jobs have awful practices.<p>I quite like how things work currently. It&#x27;s easy to tell the difference.
notShabu大约 2 年前
IMO interviews are designed solely to maximize team size. This requires filtering for individuals for fit well into a hierarchy without disrupting the structures above and below them.<p>Being &quot;good at the job&quot; is actually bad because it reduces the team&#x27;s required size.<p>Almost all the incentives revolve around this. Not only compensation, but entire hierarchies that revolve around EB1C dangling. (managers and executives at multinationals can get a green card faster)
908B64B197大约 2 年前
I think there&#x27;s a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of the whiteboard interview. The point is to eliminate, as fast as possible, candidates who simply cannot code [0] [1].<p>You can&#x27;t do that with a take-home (and I&#x27;m against take home as the signal to noise ratio is too low) because people will cheat and have them done by someone else.<p>I&#x27;ve heard horror story of a &quot;senior&quot; engineer from &quot;his country&#x27;s top school&quot; being interviewed for a technical position by several non-technical managers and HR reps. They only included an engineer in the final round, which was basically supposed to be rubberstamped anyways. He was then asked to implement something trivial like fizzbuzz or wordcount on the whiteboard. The candidate then became extremely defensive and tried to argue that such task was &quot;beneath him&quot;, arguing for a good 15 minutes why he shouldn&#x27;t have to do it.<p>Then the dev just left the room and said that he used this question as a warmup with new hires and it typically takes them less than 10 minutes.<p>Now, a lot of folks do whiteboard interviews wrong. They often expect to get the exact implementation of an algorithm they found in a textbook and for code on the board to compile. This isn&#x27;t the point of whiteboarding. Doing this only promotes rote memorization. A good whiteboard interview should be a toy problem that can be solved in several different ways by using different strategies or data-structures. The idea is to see how the candidate will break down the problem. Is the candidate able to formulate test cases, write a simple implementation, verify his code and correct the implementation should it fail a test? On the more meta side of things is the candidate able to take feedback and explain why a certain strategy was chosen? Of course it&#x27;s not representative of real world engineering but it&#x27;s a good way to peek at someone&#x27;s ability to debug and reason about programs; these abilities translate well into debugging and design. Especially at the college level, I really can&#x27;t make any assumptions on what the candidates know. I&#x27;m not judging their knowledge of the standard library of X programming language or the framework-du-jour but their ability to learn it fast.<p>Now the hard part isn&#x27;t so much to create an interview process that works well, but to create a pipeline that feeds into this interview process that has a high signal to noise ratio. In my experience, the best predictors of a good signal to noise ratio was to select for CS fundamentals, good references and offer above market comp. The latter is especially crucial now since there&#x27;s no more &quot;local market&quot; to speak of now that remote work is a lot prevalent. The &quot;local market&#x27;s&quot; best devs are working for SV firms at SV salaries mentoring SV employees.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.codinghorror.com&#x2F;why-cant-programmers-program&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.codinghorror.com&#x2F;why-cant-programmers-program&#x2F;</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;economictimes.indiatimes.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;ites&#x2F;95-engineers-in-india-unfit-for-software-development-jobs-report&#x2F;articleshow&#x2F;58278004.cms" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;economictimes.indiatimes.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;ites&#x2F;95-engineers-...</a>
Eumenes大约 2 年前
embedded tweets, comics, memes, and cartoons ... dumbing down a complex subject. Next.
andrewstuart大约 2 年前
deleted too negative, upon refection.
评论 #35034348 未加载
bobleeswagger大约 2 年前
&quot;If you wanna hire great people and have them stay working for you, you have to be run by ideas, not hierarchy. The best ideas have to win, otherwise good people don&#x27;t stay.&quot;<p>- Steve Jobs<p>I think the real disconnect with the &#x27;inclusive culture&#x27; boom comes because humans are involved so heavily in the process. The _idea_ is great, we want to be fully aware of our internal biases and avoid having them color our perception as much as possible so we do not shoot ourselves in the foot.<p>In practice, I have yet to see inclusivity programs at corporations be anything more than virtue signaling, and an opportunity to exclude others under the guise of &quot;inclusivity&quot; <i>wink wink</i>.<p>Remember &#x27;affirmative action&#x27;? It&#x27;s palpably Orwellian that inclusivity is newspeak; what we call it now.