5 ms·

it's a really simple problem honestly. Make a standardized test, but don't put an hour time limit on it. If you gave the exact same algorithm test with a 24-hou

it's a really simple problem honestly. Make a standardized test, but don't put an hour time limit on it. If you gave the exact same algorithm test with a 24-hour time limit vs. a 1-hour time limit then had a 1-hour interview explaining the solution to the problem you would be testing for something closer to programming acumen than memorization. I have no idea why tech companies find this so challenging.

halflings 7y ago
Cheating? Even with phone screens, some candidates still cheat at these interviews (have some engineer with them answering questions, or looking up similar questions online). I agree a full blown project over 24 hours would be better, but it's more costly to create questions and score them (if you want to do it in a way where cheating is hard/impossible). I've seen startups do this, and it works well for them, but might not be scalable for companies that hire thousands of employees each year.
- AlwaysBCoding 7y ago
  what even is cheating on an algorithm problem? looking up an answer online? asking someone in your social network to help you work through the problem? because that's what you actually do in the real world. as long as you can explain / defend your solution what does cheating even mean.
  - halflings 7y ago
    That's an idealistic way of looking at things. People would look-up solutions to that exact problem; it's very hard to come up with a unique problem that was never asked before, and questions leak pretty quickly. (especially at larger companies) The goal of a test is to evaluate whether you'd be a good employee; I agree algorithmic questions are not representative of day-to-day work, but evaluating your friend's ability to help you is out of scope. Companies want to hire someone that has decent programming skills; you can't rely on other people to solve all your problems, you need to have a minimum level of skill. [again, playing devil's advocate here; we all agree the process is suboptimal, but let's not ignore the negatives of some of the alternatives suggested here]
    - greggman2 7y ago
      how many things did you learn by seeing / being taught the solution and how many did you re-invent as you're basically asked to do at an interview? To give maybe a bad example, I don't know how to do a quicksort. I've written it maybe twice in my life by either being taught by a teacher or by looking it up on wikipedia. I didn't have to think of the solution on the spot. I'm not saying I can't think of solutions but still, the majority of my knowledge comes from having been taught and then using that taught knowledge over and over, not from re-invention. Note I agree we have the same goals to hire people that can do the work not people whose friends can do the work but I'm not convinced that the typical interview puzzles (find the longest segment of an array that contain 3 values) has anything to do with actual work skills. Maybe it would be better with more typical tasks? If the person claims to be back end engineer ask them to write a query to select all people between the ages of 30 and 35 in Nebraska? Maybe if they are front end ask them to implement a select/option UI?
- grumple 7y ago
  > Cheating? Even with phone screens, some candidates still cheat at these interviews (have some engineer with them answering questions, or looking up similar questions online). The only difference between these people and those who pass normally is that the latter group looked up the answers to the problem before you even asked them. Nobody comes up with things like mods of dfs or n-pointer problems on the spot. These problems were the subjects of doctoral dissertations the first times they were solved. We pass them because we've seen problems just like it. The system has been gamed and doesn't work.
hogFeast 7y ago
The key bit is getting people to explain the answer, not the answer itself. I have had interviews where the company has done that. I would rate all of those interviews to be very high quality. No nonsense trick/leading questions. Just simple: can this person actually program? What does he understand? What doesn't he understand? I felt like it was obvious what I could and could not do...there was nowhere to hide. Btw, in terms of investment, this seemed far cheaper for the companies too. What is cheaper? Arranging an hour-long interview where you go through a simple problem that is focused and will clearly identify knowledge. Against an hour-long interview where you probe someone randomly about their life and projects that the interviewer has no idea about (funnily enough, no matter how good you are communicating ideas...interviewers almost always get it wrong).

halflings 7y ago

Cheating? Even with phone screens, some candidates still cheat at these interviews (have some engineer with them answering questions, or looking up similar questions online). I agree a full blown project over 24 hours would be better, but it's more costly to create questions and score them (if you want to do it in a way where cheating is hard/impossible). I've seen startups do this, and it works well for them, but might not be scalable for companies that hire thousands of employees each year.

AlwaysBCoding 7y ago
what even is cheating on an algorithm problem? looking up an answer online? asking someone in your social network to help you work through the problem? because that's what you actually do in the real world. as long as you can explain / defend your solution what does cheating even mean.
- halflings 7y ago
  That's an idealistic way of looking at things. People would look-up solutions to that exact problem; it's very hard to come up with a unique problem that was never asked before, and questions leak pretty quickly. (especially at larger companies) The goal of a test is to evaluate whether you'd be a good employee; I agree algorithmic questions are not representative of day-to-day work, but evaluating your friend's ability to help you is out of scope. Companies want to hire someone that has decent programming skills; you can't rely on other people to solve all your problems, you need to have a minimum level of skill. [again, playing devil's advocate here; we all agree the process is suboptimal, but let's not ignore the negatives of some of the alternatives suggested here]
  - greggman2 7y ago
    how many things did you learn by seeing / being taught the solution and how many did you re-invent as you're basically asked to do at an interview? To give maybe a bad example, I don't know how to do a quicksort. I've written it maybe twice in my life by either being taught by a teacher or by looking it up on wikipedia. I didn't have to think of the solution on the spot. I'm not saying I can't think of solutions but still, the majority of my knowledge comes from having been taught and then using that taught knowledge over and over, not from re-invention. Note I agree we have the same goals to hire people that can do the work not people whose friends can do the work but I'm not convinced that the typical interview puzzles (find the longest segment of an array that contain 3 values) has anything to do with actual work skills. Maybe it would be better with more typical tasks? If the person claims to be back end engineer ask them to write a query to select all people between the ages of 30 and 35 in Nebraska? Maybe if they are front end ask them to implement a select/option UI?
grumple 7y ago
> Cheating? Even with phone screens, some candidates still cheat at these interviews (have some engineer with them answering questions, or looking up similar questions online). The only difference between these people and those who pass normally is that the latter group looked up the answers to the problem before you even asked them. Nobody comes up with things like mods of dfs or n-pointer problems on the spot. These problems were the subjects of doctoral dissertations the first times they were solved. We pass them because we've seen problems just like it. The system has been gamed and doesn't work.

hogFeast 7y ago

The key bit is getting people to explain the answer, not the answer itself. I have had interviews where the company has done that. I would rate all of those interviews to be very high quality. No nonsense trick/leading questions. Just simple: can this person actually program? What does he understand? What doesn't he understand? I felt like it was obvious what I could and could not do...there was nowhere to hide. Btw, in terms of investment, this seemed far cheaper for the companies too. What is cheaper? Arranging an hour-long interview where you go through a simple problem that is focused and will clearly identify knowledge. Against an hour-long interview where you probe someone randomly about their life and projects that the interviewer has no idea about (funnily enough, no matter how good you are communicating ideas...interviewers almost always get it wrong).