Usually I get a "Huh?"
The really stellar folks will tell you about the bug that took two weeks to find and boiled down to a single missing comma in a vendor's library routine. Or /something/. But "Huh" is a bad sign.
"Huh?" is not a fail, but it usually correlates with people who can't write a function to find the length of a string, and I see a depressing number of those folks, even ones with the tag "Senior" in their title.
Hiring strangers is terrifying.
One of the problems I always have with questions like that is this: I don't keep mental lists of events or other things ordered by potential "interestingness" to myself or other people. I just don't think that way for some reason.
I might fumble to come up with an answer to that question, and then an hour after the interview is over, I'll remember a really good story the interviewer would have liked, but in the meantime I've looked like an inexperienced, bumbling fool.
Not that it really matters, of course--eventually I'll get through an interview without hitting a question that doesn't work for me, get hired, and then actually get to do some good work for somebody. Getting through that process feels fairly random to me.
But now of course, if I ever go on an interview again, I'd dredge up some funny bug. Just in case. :)
There's always a danger when picking out certain criteria and claiming they mean something. In this case, 'ability to remember an interesting bug' does not actually select for good programmers. It just happens to overlap somewhat.
The horrible part was after all this, I had to wire up a bunch of NIM modules instead with all the special logic (coincidence/anti-coincidence triggers + a bunch of other stuff so I could have separate binned energy counters) and then calibration manually because the engineer for that board was busy with other things to fix the bug.
I would have loved to tell this story at an interview for a job, except I could almost never get past HR drones, probably because my degree said physics and not CS or EE.
But I think my best one was when I found a bug in a third party communication library, that only manifested itself on ARM architecture. Our CPU was PPC, and our simulator was x86. On both of those, unaligned memory reads work fine. But the actual unit we'd talk to had an ARM CPU. On ARM it just reads from the closest(?) aligned address. I found that by looking at network logs and reading the source (which we thankfully had).
It faulted when I used it the 1st time. Fixed the bug (alignment of source), ran again and it faulted again.
So I spent 10 minutes writing a test - move 0-128 bytes from source buffer offset 0-128 to destination buffer offset 0-128. Simple, overkill right?
11 bugs later the damned memory copy thing worked. 11.
The next thing to ask is, What did I learn from that bug? What I learned is, accept NO CODE as bug-free, no matter the source, no matter what authoritative base it came from.
Other learning: why oh why don't CPU designers put a damned memory-copy instruction into the machine? We all need it, all the time, for every project and we all hack something together that works until it doesn't. Sigh.
What made it fun was that it was a SAS program (which I knew) with extremely complex, 5-layer deep macros that called VBScript (which I did not know) all over the place. Debugging stuff in a language you don't know under a tight deadline-that's a thrill!
I seem to remember the
(member 1 '(1 2 3)) -> t
(equal '(1 2) '(1 2)) -> t
(member '(1 2) '('(1 2) '(3 4))) -> nil
It was a production bug where a customer's birthday was rejected as invalid. This was in Germany, which is relevant because it turned out to depend on the machine's timezone. You see, when Java parses a date, it computes all fields of a Calendar object and then does a sanity check on them. Some smartass had decided in Java 1.4 to have that reject daylight savings time offsets greater than 1 hour. Unfortunately, Berlin and the Soviet-occupied part of Germany had a 2 hour daylight savings time offset in the summer of 1945, because that corresponded to Moscow time.
1. debugging an options calculation on a spark workstation for a Merrill Lynch trader who was incognito and on his honeymoon. A certain options valuation table he was using had expired and needed to be updated. Ad interim his position went haywire. I didn't have the exact source, so the debugger was off by one line, then two lines, then three lines. But I found where the table was used and was able to patch and recompile the code.
2. This dates me somewhat (recruiters consider me too old) but I was bitten by the 80286 POPF bug, which caused the interrupt disable mask to be ignored in an interrupt driver I had written for a Motorola 6852 (if I recall). I found the bug but the client announced it was going out of business (I wasn't responsible).
I stalled 30 seconds, pulled Lottery Scheduling out of my ass, and proceeded to do pretty well on the interview, then be told that they wouldn't hire me because they could tell I'd go to graduate school.
If you're ok with someone pulling an interesting story from memory rather than actually computing a total ordering on bugs or algorithms for "best", these questions work very well.
I think the question is great to see if somebody is on the same wavelength as oneself and probably a good conversation starter. I'm not sure if it helps with distinguishing between good and not so good programmers.
For every person who says not to bother with a resume, there is another person who wants them.
For every person who denounces certain terms on a resume, another person is looking for them.
For every person who thinks "experienced with" means "you can write a book on the subject", someone else things "you've used it in production."
White board tests are necessary. They are useless. Example code is critical. No, just showing projects. Gotta see open source contributions. No, show what your code accomplished.
You need schooling. You don't need schooling. Degrees don't matter (though, try to get a visa without one). Self-taught rules.
Ask them to write a FizzBuzz program. Reverse FizzBuzz. FizzBuzz is silly and doesn't matter.
Throw out half the resumes so you only hire the lucky ones. Have them work for you for 90 days/1 month/2 weeks/1 week/1 day/1 project.
My advice: ask them whether they prefer green or purple. Whether they prefer the number 34 or the letter X. Take them out to lunch and see if they know the name of the waiter/waitress. Then get your mother's opinion on them. Then play a game of Magic: The Gathering with them, and if they win, roll a d20 to see if they can beat the AC of the job. That method has never failed me.
So yeah. Looking for work? Be smart. Be yourself. Because if you resort to playing games and being someone else, you're going to end up working for someone who thinks you are something/someone you are not. If you can't get the job because your resume was too plain/too fancy for the person doing the hiring, it's probably for the best.
Edit: To be clear, this isn't a direct response to the original article, but rather, to these types of articles in general.
Want to know how to separate the good advice from the bad? Look for good companies and learn what their practices are. Find out how their organization works. If they're a lean mean innovation machine that values quality work and ships amazing products at a maintainable scale, chances are better that their hiring practices are also good (so long as you evaluate them before hubris poisons the hiring process, which may or may not happen). After you collect enough data points you'll probably notice a number of similarities.
In the end, the proof is in the pudding. People can opine till they're blue in the face, but if they're not killing it in their chosen market, if people don't really like working there, if someone is about to eat their lunch, then they're doing things wrong, and it would be risky to take advice from them.
I think that a lot of the frustration is coming from hackers who were rejected and find that they are left without any additional data to understand what that did or did not do that led to the rejection. Through recruiters you can sometimes hear a hint of why the rejection came, but if you work directly with a company they usually don't say anything except for "we liked you but ______"
But I agree, these interview posts altogether don't seem to say anything consistent.
Why?
One doesn't necessarily lead to the other, and the absence of A doesn't exclude B.
It's a common mistake to believe that CS cannot be self-taught.
> [a coding test] won't tell you squat about how good they are in a year long project with 10 other people,
The author misses the point of a coding test. It's a negative rather than positive filter. Someone who does amazing on FizzBuzz is not by definition an amazing programmer. Someone who can't solve FizzBuzz however almost certainly is not a good programmer.
Simple coding tests are a very effective filter in terms of the time spent.
> So why spend an inordinate amount of time on relatively minor parts of a programmer's skill set?
I wouldn't call half an hour "an inordinate amount of time".
The author then opines about how "can just tell" if someone is a good programmer or not. I can sympathize because frankly so can I. I went through a period of taking 10 interviewees to lunch. I asked them nothing technical and basically just answered their questions. From the first 10 minutes I could tell:
- 1 would probably get an offer (he did);
- 8 would not (they didn't); and
- 1 I was unsure about (no offer).
Looking at the author's profile [1] I believe I can see the problem: it doesn't appear he's ever worked for a large engineering organization. This is fairly obvious from the content of this post because none of his solutions scale.
Let's say you have a large organization with 5 Andrews. Each of them says to hire this guy they just interviewed. What do you do if you're looking for less than 5 people? Are they going to work on the respective teams of those giving the recommendation? If not, how do you know they're a good fit? You need to consider company-wise culture and expectations. How do you calibrate between them? Do they have the necessary foundation to do not just the job they'll be starting on but to grow with the organization, adapt and perhaps work on other projects?
The other problem I have is the "war stories" aspect. This is a very definite bias. Take the way human memory works. Imagine you have a conversation with someone that's memorable in some way. At first you can remember word-for-word what happened. That quickly fades and you remember the gist of what was said. You may even think you remember exactly what was said and how it was said but usually you're wrong (try it by writing down what was exactly said and going back to it after months or having two or more people recount the same event). After awhile even that made fade and you may just be left with an emotion about the event.
Some things I can remember very well but more often than not, I've learnt my lesson and the exact circumstances or even the origin entirely are lost. This is largely because it's useless information.
But here's the biggest problem of all with the post:
> My favorite idea is still contract to hire everyone after your (hopefully reasonable) interview;
Okay, you've excluded anyone really good because they're not going to jump through that hoop. I don't consider myself a "rockstar" and even I won't jump through that.
Maybe the real problem is the OP doesn't even know what good programmers are because this is a recipe for mediocrity.
Lastly there's a story about team bonding (probably distorted if not made up outright at a guess). The author doesn't seem to realize that his hiring process is pretty much about hiring people like himself, which is fine, but that's not the definition of a good programmer.
I've seen teams work well who:
- all work closely together and socialize together;
- never socialize together;
- work remotely;
- work on different schedules;
- and so on.
Don't confuse programming ability with culture fit and work style. Those are three different things all important.
In a large organization you're going to have some aspect of a common culture but very different team cultures (and even site cultures). Part of hiring in a large organization is recognizing that you're not trying to hire "you" and then working out how you can best use someone not like you such that they flourish.
EDIT: oh and if he thinks Google, as one example, hasn't done extensive data analysis on interview techniques he's nuts.
Case in point - over the past week I've interviewed for four positions. Three gave me offers within a day, with very little effort on my part. On the other hand, one told me that I had little idea of what I was doing and told me to study up and apply again next year. And, that was after wasting my time with 3.5 hours of interviews. Of the offers I received, two were well over 120k plus great bonus. The other came in under 90k but told me that I could work anywhere in the world, whenever I wanted, as long as I got my work done.
Over that same time, I flat out rejected three recruiters from large engineering companies because their recruitment processes would have cost me $700-1500 just in opportunity costs. And, they weren't even willing to give me the info I needed to help me determine my chance of success or even my expected pay.
Everyone these days seems to believe that their company is so important that they deserve or need a team of top 1000 engineers. When in fact a top 20-percent team who bonds well together would likely be sufficient.
The topic of interviewing is fascinating because there seems to be very little science behind it. Who knows what works?
1. The interviewer and interviewee are after similar and complementary things.
Wrong. The interviewee is trying to find out if the work is interesting, whether or not this would be a good place to work, whether or not he or she could work in that environment with that team and so on.
The interviewer (or rather the employer) is trying to fill a position. This is really important.
Some make the mistake of thinking that if an interview process doesn't evaluate the interviewee accurately it has failed. This is grossly inaccurate. The point of an interview process shouldn't be to look at a single candidate but to look at the process of filling a position, which may well span interviewing many candidates.
A false positive (someone who looks qualified but isn't) for an employer can be incredibly costly. The cost of a false negative is essentially zero as long as the employer can otherwise adequately fill the position.
To spell it out: if an employer gets 50 applications, has phone interviews for 8, brings in 4 for face-to-face interviews and makes two offers, one of which is accepted, the employer has gained the desired result. The fact that a qualified person was rejected along the way (false negative) is essentially irrelevant.
2. Your worth is constant.
Wrong. You said it yourself. You got several different offers. You're implying that if you had been accurately gauged market conditions would have you valued roughly similarly.
Company A might be desperate. Company B less so. You may fill a niche far better at one employer than another. One employer may simply be more cashed up and able to pay a better salary. A given employer may simply suck at negotiating or be under a misconception about market value. The list goes on.
Likewise, your desirability to the employer factors into this and it goes beyond technical skills. If the employer thinks you'll be a great fit and they'd really like to work with you, that improves your worth (to them).
3. Companies are looking for the same thing.
Clearly this is wrong but I do see this attitude come up, typically being implied by showing mismatches in offers as "proof" or similar.
There are many examples of this. For example, all other things being equal I've found that an MIT graduate is much more likely to hire other MIT graduates. The same is true for Stanford, CMU or [insert school here].
Part of this is the "social proof" element (going to a great school and/or working for a top-tier employer can be a huge advantage). But more than that it comes down to cultural similarity, common background and being a known quantity (to some degree).
This is of course different for every employer.
The real problem with interviewing, particularly at larger organizations, is that people who are bad at it are doing it. Interviewing and assessing potential colleagues is a skill and a talent. Some people have it. Some don't.
I've seen another comment here that said you need great engineers to do interviewing. I disagree. Many great engineers seem to be essentially savants who are often ill-equipped for the social discourse entailed in interviewing.
To interview an engineer I firmly believe you need to be an engineer (the same goes for managing engineers) but you don't need to be a rock star. You just have the right additional skills.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%E2%80%93Morris%E2%80%93Pr...
Even then, it's not the coded solution that I'm particularly interested in - it's the explanation that follows about how you got to that solution and the discussion about the pros and cons of your particular implementation. I'm looking for signs that you can solve problems and that you can look at your solutions with a critical eye and understand their weaknesses as well.
For what it's worth, the nastiest interview question I've ever had involved building and searching interval trees with up to a billion intervals stored in it where they were looking for solutions which provided the fastest posible search times. It was less than fun.
It seems like everyone has a pet favorite interview problem that they like to throw at the candidate and in my experience some of them were definitely not fizzbuzz .And then if one interviewer doesn't like you then you dont get hired.All the work you have done is irrelevant if that pet problem is not solved optimally on the whiteboard.But then of course I am probably a little incompetent too.
If you asked a different question to every candidate you interviewed, it would be very difficult to get a sense of how they compare to other candidates, or to employees.
Now, the astonishing issue, for me, is that there apparently are huge loads of people applying for programming positions who actually fail FizzBuzz. In effect, it's akin to applying for the position of a bus driver "coz I once travelled on a bus". I don't get that but apparently it does happen often enough to warrant FizzBuzz.
I've hired great people without having them write code. (Or at least, not in a whiteboard)
Trust me, you can know a lot about a candidate without him or her writing a line of code (ok, maybe a line)
My favorite question: "Tell me about a bug you once solved". That will tell you loads about the candidate
Or ask him/her about the difference bewteen foldl and foldr
But, really, I won't use FizzBuzz again
"blah blah candidate has to write code" I won't use FizzBuzz
Be creative people, FizzBuzz is easy, but it's boring. And it's a bad filter (from experience).
It's also extremely depressing.
...seriously, this filters out a depressing number of people who put SQL on their resume and are applying for a SQL job.
What's funny is that the Non programmer interviewers are starting to administer coding tests, and they don't know what a good response is! So here I am doing a coding tests on a white board, and and I'm being tested on delivering the optimized code on the spot, basically producing the best code. So now instead of birdseed knowledge tests, we are tested for creating an algorithm from memory on the spot, a memorization game. Like Jeopardy. That's not how the best coders code, we offload most things to google searches and general process of cutting code. They don't realize this because they evaluators can't write a program. They can only understand one specific algorithm and its implementation.
So the only way to get a good coder is to take your best coder, and then hand him a stack of resumes, and ask him which ones to bring in, and have him sit down with the recruits and have him give an up or down vote.
Using non coders to filter coder resumes? The time is better spent hiring a monkey to throw darts and hire the one with the most darts. I don't care how many books on coding interviews they read.
However... I've known a few great coders who were absolutely terrible interviewers. So just being great technically also isn't a sure sign that the interview will be handled well.
If that's really what you think, you may want to reconsider who the "we" you're talking about are.
Unless you think "good" coders reinvent algorithms they don't know from first principles?
Good coders are clever problem solvers and well-organized thinkers. They don't need to have photographic memories that store every possible command and instruction, even ones that they have never ever used and find no use for. As long as you know what is relevant for the current task and have a peripheral awareness of what else exists, you can do your current tasks and know what to search for in books or on google if something out of the ordinary is required.
I think that the tests are very important, but it's hard to do them efficiently and to create good tests that test skills that are important to the job at hand.
The tests should have well-defined constraints and instructions, and once the tests are complete the code should be the basis for a discussion about why certain choices were made.
I've basically received the same type of coding test from 10 different companies for the Sr. DevOps roles that I'm looking at... and it's really sad honestly to see what they're asking me to do. It's basically high-school CS where I'm supposed to open one file and pull out specific parts of that file and then compare it with a second file and output only certain lines from the second file based on a comparison with the lines from the first file.
The instructions are poor, and I'm expected to clarify each time with these kinds of questions: "Ok do I need to worry about memory?" "Does this need to work for files of arbitrary sizes?" "Does this need to handle error checking?" "Is it important that the code is readable & documented?" "How long do I have to complete this test?" etc...
But in DevOps, I am given a specific situation that I know a lot about... and based on the situation I am used to answering these questions myself. I should be given a specific and relevant situation... and then create a solution to solve it based on my experience and knowledge of what the constraints are when dealing with that kind of situation...
If I'm given a situation that compares the /etc/passwd file with the /etc/group file, I'm not assuming that it's reasonable/possible in even a system set up by the most bumbling sysadmin that those files would be millions of lines long each... And if they're blank or corrupt we definitely have other issues... If this script needs to run unattended for a long period of time it should have error checking and logging. But if it's just run once I wouldn't need to do everything in software as long as I: 1) make backups of the files 2) 'less' into the files and take a quick look to make sure that there aren't any surprises. 3) Run a test on copies of the files...
Wayyy back in CS 101 did it ever really matter if a one-time piece of code executes in 0.0000000001 seconds versus 0.000000000099999 ? If that is important to you, then please give me a real-world example that requires optimization. Or just specify that the solution needs to be as fast as possible. My recollection was that highly optimized code often needed to be rewritten when future assignments built on the code written in the earlier assignments.
Also fyi for interviewers... if I'm using a scripting language there might be some behind the optimizations that alters the typical CS understanding of the performance characteristics of sets, hash maps/hash tables, and arrays. (See php and python for example) It seems that any question that CAN use a hash map probably should use one in a programming interview... Scripting languages can also handle errors in a pretty amazing way that interviewers may not be familiar with. For example, splitting a string a="a:b:c::::::::::" in python by using b=a.split(':') works just fine and results in b=['a', 'b', 'c', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', ''].
Which brings up a final point... in the real-world, writing a first version of your code in a more generic and unoptimized way leads to code that you can more easily adapt in the future when you rewrite or refactor due to changing requirements. And less optimized code is generally more readable and for other coders who may actually need to read your code and make future changes it can be easier to spot problems or make changes many months or years after you finish your version. But in a coding interview, always assume that they want the most optimized version of the code... but make sure to ask anyhow just in case. Some people may actually care to see if you can code in a way that balances between speed and maintainability.
Testing is important, but it is extremely important to design tests in a way that helps reveal the characteristics that are important to the job you are hiring for. And if something is a google search away and not something that is necessary for the job, it's not something that an experienced coder will keep in their valuable brain-based memory storage.
I have this theory that hiring people is nowhere near as hard as this particular echo-chamber likes to think it is. Everyone thinks they need "rockstars" or "A Players" and is looking for the magical recipe for finding them, but I think for most positions, someone who is smart and technically competent and fits with your company's culture is entirely sufficient.
Most of the startups we talk about depend on good execution of a simple idea, not advanced technical skills[1]. I believe that a good leader with the right vision and the ability to articulate that to his or her employees can take smart people who fit well with the company and form them into people who will execute consistently well. Not only that, but this creates a belief system around engineering and product that is compounding and self-reinforcing.
Identifying technically competent people is not that difficult. If you were to read a few of the last 200 articles where we've talked about this, there are some common threads.
First this, always this: a) Have them write at least a little bit of code to see that they actually know how.
Then pick a few of these. If at all possible spread the interviews out amongst a group of people so you can get different viewpoints. a) Ask them some relevant programming questions and observe their answers. Focus on things related to the kinds of work they'll be doing in their job. Maybe work on a whiteboard, or even in a text editor. Maybe even a little bit of both. b) Ask them a broader set of questions relevant to things like algorithms and data structures. Even for simple web apps, it helps to be at least conversant in the basics of these topics. c) Ask them to see open source work, or if they have a profile, or maybe some code they wrote that they're comfortable sharing with you.
I really think that if you put someone in a room with a competent engineer for an hour, that engineer will be able to tell if the person they've been speaking to is a good engineer or not.
First, probably if you got an actual rock star programmer (Zed Shaw comes to mind), you probably wouldn't be able to handle/keep him.
Secondly, really? You want people that crank out Lisp transpilers in their spare time... But what about people that maybe are good with taking some oddball client spec and going back and forth to understand the desired behavior and distill something that is actually possible to implement? What about the guy who takes that extra 10% of time to implement a feature, but they end up giving you some new common code you can apply in your app?
Maybe these people don't dream Ruby DSLs, or have Github Infinity number of issues in their inbox, but they can still be valuable to a team. Because the best code in the world is useless if the programmer has misunderstood what the client is really saying.
My current day job is to write CRUD apps in Rails, but my long-term plan has me back in academia (for a PhD and a research career), where the ability to crank out a Lisp transpiler in one's spare time actually gets used.
For example: * math * research * art * visual design * writing * music
* programming?
People have been trying to apply Taylorism to programming making it approach an assembly line in organization. Now we're trying to organize programmers as sports teams instead with Agile.
I just don't understand why programming specifically is under this intense pressure of having to be measurable and quantifiable in every little detail.
It seems like being a good cog in an assembly line, or a good member of a sports team is just as important, if not more, as just creating good programs. Why aren't for example visual designers being hassled in this way? No they are beging left alone as long as they do good stuff. They can freelance or work from home if they want.
But programming is somehow different. There's this assumption that it needs to be done in a group at all times. Solving all problems by group discussion.
If I was hiring I would just ask to see previous project, and/or a portfolio (github for example). If they have nothing to show, or it's really bad and show no signs of progress, I would not hire. Simple as that.
I wouldn't hire a group of 15 clearly sub-standard visual designers who have nothing to show, try to organize them into a group, measure closely and try to make them create visual design.
In the same way I would not try to do this with programmers either.
This can be cheated. They could get someone else to create the Gibhub portfolio for them, perhaps a friend who's an unemployed "real programmer", just like they could get someone else to sit an aptitude test for them if only HR people are at the test and no photos are taken.
I just can't imagine hearing someone say "Yeah this guy is a great visual designer, look as his gorgeous portfolio, and look at all this great stuff he did at smashing magazine (or whatever good place for design, I don't know..) But he's not a team player, he is sceptical about doing 'pair-designing' for 8 hours a day with other randomly chosen incompetent designers. No hire."
I interviewed for google once; their recruiter found me through an open source project in which google has a stake.
Anyways, I was tired when I did my phone interview, having just returned home from work. I bombed a couple of those interview puzzles. I felt pretty stupid because the answers are really obvious to me in hindsight. No biggie.
So this week they interviewed a junior programmer I mentored in the past. It looks like they might hire him! :-) good one. If they asked him he'd easily send them my way (guess who he comes to whenever he has questions?) Oh well.
If their recruiter contacts me again I might still do another interview. Their "write some code in a google document" interview style was novel, but possibly sub-optimal. YMMV
Not sure how else you'd handle it though, really. Busy people are busy.
Perhaps there are companies out there with a large enough sample size that are recording metrics on a "programming concepts verbal interview", "analytical thinking verbal interview", "programming test" and "resume match", such that they can evaluate what are the best predictors.
That's a pretty scary thing to do, but it could be worth it for a large company which needs to improve its hiring. Think exploration/exploitation.
It seems like the rather more difficult problem is getting competent programmers to want to work at your company and apply.
The rational mind can make a "decision", like "this candidate passed all our interviews and qualifies on paper: that means we can hire him". But the true decision of hiring someone is more like a "to engage or not to engage ourselves with this guy, in a joint (work) life together and into the future". Conversely, you can just decide to nominally hire people but never back it up on a personal, human level.
The process of hiring is golden as a negative filter: you want to weed out people who factually aren't up to it. But there's no positive filter that you can unilaterally apply. In the end, you just have to let yourself "know" who to hire because there's nothing else you can do.
Personally, I have a very bad memory, especially when confronted with query-like questions like "explain how you solved some hard problem when working at company X". I remember based on associations, not time: If you sit me down in front of the code I wrote, or pose the problem to me directly, I'll remember in a jiffy, but looking back on my time at a company/at school/etc it just seems like a blur---I can't remember anything at all that way!
Even short-term, here's what I've noticed: I could verbally list seven terms and their definitions. If I then proceeded to ask you the definition of any one of those terms, you could probably tell me. But if I asked you to recite back to me all seven terms, you'd probably forget at least one or two.
1. In most cases, the person (or the person in charge, if it is a panel) makes a decision in the first five minutes of the interview.
2. The decision is based on how much the candidate resembles the interviewer (i.e. how similar they are to the interviewer in terms of personality and skill set).
The people who can make the judgement call are usually the hire's peers based on their daily interactions, so how would management be able to get its hands on this knowledge without turning the company culture into a disaster where people always feel like they are being continuously judged by their peers and have to watch their backs?
To anyone wondering, "How could this possibly be true? How could so many companies be getting the hiring process so wrong?" I say: it's because they aren't focused on the goal. That doens't mean companies never achieve their goals, they are simply optimizing the wrong aspects of the process.
For anyone interested, the book The Goal by Eli Goldratt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel)) illustrates this phenomenon very well.
Thruth is lot of companies out there are mediocre. And this shows on how they recruit.
Everyone wants a "rockstar" for some average CRUD app, but they don't seem to understand that most programmers will do fine building them. Even people who interview badly.
I think that programmers should be the ones taking a detailed look at companies to see if they are a fit with the dev team instead of the other way around. After all, if you don't feel well whithin a team, how will you do your best?
But the best method I have come across was where I was just asked 20 or so questions of basic computer science knowledge from OOP to networking to basic CS theory.
I say this was my favourite method because I know some recent graduates who could and can write a very simple application but are terrible programmers and would not last the probationary period (actually happened to someone I know) but I know that if you asked them a series of basic questions they would stumble and fall because in general they where just terrible computer scientists and once outside of the very basic elements of programming they knew nothing so what good does asking someone to write fizzbuzz actually do? apart from weed out the idiots (then again I know someone else who failed fizzbuzz, largely because he managed to get through 3 years of CS and not know about using %).
After being the industry for a while, I feel the best way to hire someone is still on referral. Developers know good developers and the good ones tend to stick together. They also know what their friends skills are, what they excel at, and what kind of work they would recommend.
Also, in the end, I learned its not what questions they ask, it's not about the stupid quizzes they put you through. Developers have to learn it's about you knowing enough about the company or asking enough tough questions to determine if it's going to be a good fit. Developers should have as much, if not more of a responsibility in vetting the companies they choose to interview with.
Sure, simple tests to filter out people who clearly know nothing about programming are useful, but puzzlers and other ego-trip tests are useless.
I can hire better programmers by asking them to write an essay about any current piece of news.
The English language is the first programming language one should master. It's the one most useful to handle interactions with other human beings, and that's what makes the most important difference in any job.
It would be better if people would evaluate ideas in articles rather than use the author's name as a leverage point to launch personal attacks. Several posts here attack the author as being incompetent in various ways and not having had serious experience. Yet a brief review of his resume shows he works at Travelocity, worked at Apple in the past, and personally invented a innovative spreadsheet using a different information organization paradigm that ended up influencing iNumbers. So he's not really the dumbass that some people are trying to make him out to be. It's obvious he's a talented, serious and experienced engineer. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with his article, but snarky and contemptuous remarks about his supposed incompetency detract severely from points made, making them seem like the critic is an immature schoolyard bully.
too whiny for my taste.