Ask HN: How to assess interviewee math skills without test questions?

There are many variants of this open ended question ("hard problem", "was proud of", ... always some adjective or adverb that would be emotionally positive for an honest person) and most of the time the recipients feel a sense of relief and end up feeling pretty good about it. Often you find out a lot about what a person (did|does) (know|not know).

It's actually one of the most psychologically revealing questions that will catch the liar and professional bullshitter and leave them feeling like you dropped them 150 miles out at sea into the sharks -- and they deserve it.

I doubt that it works against the C-level psychopath because they know this question is coming so they hire a writer and take acting lessons.

OTOH there are countless times my math sense of trends, growth, recognition of foldable cases, etc that I wouldn't be able to assess.

Can anyone give examples of math skills that would be useful day to day that a spreadsheet with simple formulas won't solve?

One example I can think of is solving a recurrence relation to get the big-O bound for an algorithm, but also rarely needed as the algorithm usually shows itself as being log, linear, poly or exp.

1. Trust the tech/maths capabilities of hires who pass the new interview process.

2. Clearly represent that need to others in the org who are more conversation-focused.

Do I have that right?

------------------------------

1. Design interviews as close as you can to the day-to-day work -- like pair-programming and pair code-review, but for maths.

When interviews resemble the work, it is easier for the new hire to trust that they can do the work. Some of the best interviews I've done (from both ends) were pair programming and code-review based. When I started an interview by writing tests first and then got hired for that, led me to feel a higher sense of psychological safety during the day-to-day work. I trusted that my need for TDD was aligned with the org's needs and that my ability to discuss technical tradeoffs were sufficient to deliver results. If new joiners trust that their skills are a good fit for their role, it is easier for them to speak up in otherwise-tough conversations.

For more on this, read The Speed of Trust or this blog post summarising a piece of it:

http://eliteaming.blogspot.com/2016/09/core-3-capabilities-p...

2. Represent the value of a solid base of technical expertise to folks who think in terms of conversation and creativity.

First, refer to the need for trust to enable high-quality conversations.

Second, refer to the need for folks who can make technical details accessible.

"We need people with the depth of expertise that can allow them to explain deep technical issues clearly, correctly, and accessibly. That clarity is necessary so everyone in the room can play with those ideas and see unexpected opportunities -- and so they can offer an off-the-wall idea knowing that we'd clearly see its technical risks and make a high-quality decision about it."

https://kottke.org/17/06/if-you-cant-explain-something-in-si...

Conduct Based Questions - Lead to an insight into the probable behavior of people in the workplace...

Everyone should read... https://amzn.to/3aetw0p

I know that question might sound a bit trollish but it is a genuine one. I thought along with specialty in a particular engineering discipline all engineering graduates were required to have proficiency in Math and Communication.

Are You talking about hiring a person without a degree? Is the competition for qualified employees that stiff these days?

Maybe paid internships for current students could help develop a group of potential future hires, most students are fine with tests.

You might be able to glean some indication of a persons interest in Math by looking into their online histories but I don't know if such a service is available let alone ethical.