Something else interviewers do wrong
-
Following is from the CodeProject newsletter Live Coding Interviews[^] I couldn't agree more with what is said there. If a company is looking for a senior developer does one really expect it to matter how they set up a method signature? I want them to be able to design a sub-system. A real sub-system. So I want to hear about a real problem that they designed and implemented in the past. I absolutely do not want them to code a binary search algorithm because a senior developer should never code that - there are already existing solutions and they should know to use them. And if the position in a junior developer then I expect that they will not be able to program in the first place. They can't design, they can't correctly create objects, they will introduce errors. Which is why they must always have a mentor (not half-a** either but basically at 50% utility.) Most of these tests are basically ludicrous. At one point when I was looking for a job 3 different companies used an online IQ test to screen. Guess what - same IQ test for all three. Adhoc tests by developers are even worse since they do not even understand how testing works. And certainly have never considered creating/determining a baseline for the test that they are giving. Another company decided to start using a touchy-feely psy test which they came up with an 'ideal' category for new programmers. Then they gave it to the large (about 300) set of developers already working in the company. Of the top developers in the company already formally recognized by the company as being the best none of them tested into the 'ideal' category.
-
Following is from the CodeProject newsletter Live Coding Interviews[^] I couldn't agree more with what is said there. If a company is looking for a senior developer does one really expect it to matter how they set up a method signature? I want them to be able to design a sub-system. A real sub-system. So I want to hear about a real problem that they designed and implemented in the past. I absolutely do not want them to code a binary search algorithm because a senior developer should never code that - there are already existing solutions and they should know to use them. And if the position in a junior developer then I expect that they will not be able to program in the first place. They can't design, they can't correctly create objects, they will introduce errors. Which is why they must always have a mentor (not half-a** either but basically at 50% utility.) Most of these tests are basically ludicrous. At one point when I was looking for a job 3 different companies used an online IQ test to screen. Guess what - same IQ test for all three. Adhoc tests by developers are even worse since they do not even understand how testing works. And certainly have never considered creating/determining a baseline for the test that they are giving. Another company decided to start using a touchy-feely psy test which they came up with an 'ideal' category for new programmers. Then they gave it to the large (about 300) set of developers already working in the company. Of the top developers in the company already formally recognized by the company as being the best none of them tested into the 'ideal' category.
When I applied for a job as a computer operator back in 1965, I knew nothing about computers. The interview itself started with about a dozen of us in a classroom. It was explained that we were to be given a test which was used to measure suitability for the job. The test itself consisted of about 10 questions which all involved moving numbers from a starting box to a finishing one. Along the way there were one or two calculations to be done. Though I had no idea what the basis of the questions was, the answers all seemed logical to me, and I got the job. Later when a friend taught me the basics of the machine's instruction code I realised that the test was just about writing programs, and a few years later I switched jobs to actual programming. From that early start I managed to bluff my way through 40+ years of pretending to be a programmer.
-
Following is from the CodeProject newsletter Live Coding Interviews[^] I couldn't agree more with what is said there. If a company is looking for a senior developer does one really expect it to matter how they set up a method signature? I want them to be able to design a sub-system. A real sub-system. So I want to hear about a real problem that they designed and implemented in the past. I absolutely do not want them to code a binary search algorithm because a senior developer should never code that - there are already existing solutions and they should know to use them. And if the position in a junior developer then I expect that they will not be able to program in the first place. They can't design, they can't correctly create objects, they will introduce errors. Which is why they must always have a mentor (not half-a** either but basically at 50% utility.) Most of these tests are basically ludicrous. At one point when I was looking for a job 3 different companies used an online IQ test to screen. Guess what - same IQ test for all three. Adhoc tests by developers are even worse since they do not even understand how testing works. And certainly have never considered creating/determining a baseline for the test that they are giving. Another company decided to start using a touchy-feely psy test which they came up with an 'ideal' category for new programmers. Then they gave it to the large (about 300) set of developers already working in the company. Of the top developers in the company already formally recognized by the company as being the best none of them tested into the 'ideal' category.
I once had an interview for a large bank. No formal tests, just a chat with two developers who asked me technical questions. One question was about Entity Framework, which I've used for years and know quite well. I don't remember what the question was, but I remember knowing giving the correct answer. Their reply was "No, that's not how you do it. We do [some improper use of EF]." Basically, I got rejected because I was right and the interviewers were a bunch of bunglers. After that interview I didn't want to work there anyway X| At another company I got a pretty large test. Putting numbers and symbols in boxes, writing a small web page, designing a database... I don't think I did very well on the test, but well enough for them to hire me. Once I worked there I realized none of them would be able to complete the test. Biggest bunch of bunglers I'd ever seen. Their HTML was crap, their CSS was crap, their database was full of unneccesary YAGNI recursion, their C# functions consisted of 1000+ lines of code. At one point I told them "why are you guys minimizing your JavaScript? It can't be minimized the way you wrote it because everything is public." I even showed them how to properly encapsulate it using a simple module pattern, but one of the guys started shouting (literally) because he didn't understand it and I had to revert my changes. About a year later we got an issue from a pen test, our JavaScript wasn't minimized (mind you, it was). After some investigation, the team lead was shocked by the quality of our JavaScript. Needless to say, everything else wasn't much better :rolleyes: Yeah, those tests mean nothing.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
Following is from the CodeProject newsletter Live Coding Interviews[^] I couldn't agree more with what is said there. If a company is looking for a senior developer does one really expect it to matter how they set up a method signature? I want them to be able to design a sub-system. A real sub-system. So I want to hear about a real problem that they designed and implemented in the past. I absolutely do not want them to code a binary search algorithm because a senior developer should never code that - there are already existing solutions and they should know to use them. And if the position in a junior developer then I expect that they will not be able to program in the first place. They can't design, they can't correctly create objects, they will introduce errors. Which is why they must always have a mentor (not half-a** either but basically at 50% utility.) Most of these tests are basically ludicrous. At one point when I was looking for a job 3 different companies used an online IQ test to screen. Guess what - same IQ test for all three. Adhoc tests by developers are even worse since they do not even understand how testing works. And certainly have never considered creating/determining a baseline for the test that they are giving. Another company decided to start using a touchy-feely psy test which they came up with an 'ideal' category for new programmers. Then they gave it to the large (about 300) set of developers already working in the company. Of the top developers in the company already formally recognized by the company as being the best none of them tested into the 'ideal' category.
Weeding out people who think and plan before hitting the keyboard sounds like a great way to get the workers they deserve. And they're probably the ones who complain that they can't find workers. I have no problem speaking to an auditorium full of people, but I do *not* want people to watch me type.
-
I once had an interview for a large bank. No formal tests, just a chat with two developers who asked me technical questions. One question was about Entity Framework, which I've used for years and know quite well. I don't remember what the question was, but I remember knowing giving the correct answer. Their reply was "No, that's not how you do it. We do [some improper use of EF]." Basically, I got rejected because I was right and the interviewers were a bunch of bunglers. After that interview I didn't want to work there anyway X| At another company I got a pretty large test. Putting numbers and symbols in boxes, writing a small web page, designing a database... I don't think I did very well on the test, but well enough for them to hire me. Once I worked there I realized none of them would be able to complete the test. Biggest bunch of bunglers I'd ever seen. Their HTML was crap, their CSS was crap, their database was full of unneccesary YAGNI recursion, their C# functions consisted of 1000+ lines of code. At one point I told them "why are you guys minimizing your JavaScript? It can't be minimized the way you wrote it because everything is public." I even showed them how to properly encapsulate it using a simple module pattern, but one of the guys started shouting (literally) because he didn't understand it and I had to revert my changes. About a year later we got an issue from a pen test, our JavaScript wasn't minimized (mind you, it was). After some investigation, the team lead was shocked by the quality of our JavaScript. Needless to say, everything else wasn't much better :rolleyes: Yeah, those tests mean nothing.
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
lol. I had forgotten one interview long ago... The interviewer came in and started with some basic C++ questions. And then one that was rather specific related to how C++ handled virtual methods and static method calls internally. I answered it. Then I remarked what a coincidence that question was because I had answered exactly the same question several days ago in an online forum. At that moment I really did think it was just a coincidence. The interviewer immediately seemed to get flustered and the interview ended quickly after that. It wasn't till I was walking back to my car that I finally realized he had found my answer on the forum and used it as an interview question for me. Didn't of course admit it. I didn't hear back from them.
-
lol. I had forgotten one interview long ago... The interviewer came in and started with some basic C++ questions. And then one that was rather specific related to how C++ handled virtual methods and static method calls internally. I answered it. Then I remarked what a coincidence that question was because I had answered exactly the same question several days ago in an online forum. At that moment I really did think it was just a coincidence. The interviewer immediately seemed to get flustered and the interview ended quickly after that. It wasn't till I was walking back to my car that I finally realized he had found my answer on the forum and used it as an interview question for me. Didn't of course admit it. I didn't hear back from them.
I hate pecker heads like that. Went into an interview a long time ago. Fixed the development team's problem they had been struggling with for 2 months. Then met the "architect" - a serious prick of an individual. Went to lunch with the PM. He was worse than the architect which I thought was nigh impossible. a few years later a head hunter called me about an open opportunity - he described it - I asked, "This is Scientific Atlanta, isn't it?" Yes it is why? Cause I won't work for those $#%%&^&^%. Talk about leaving the HH sputtering :) These tests are so ridiculous with one exception - new developers - 5 or less years in the trade. If you claim you know C - you better be able to explain to me pointers. C++ - just tell me the difference been a class and an object. You'll be amazed how shallow the knowledge it.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
-
Weeding out people who think and plan before hitting the keyboard sounds like a great way to get the workers they deserve. And they're probably the ones who complain that they can't find workers. I have no problem speaking to an auditorium full of people, but I do *not* want people to watch me type.
Ewww - that's cruel Paul. I like it. I like to follow up with "What do you use for source control? Can you briefly elaborate on your build process?" The answers will tell you all you need to know about the managers and senior developers.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
