←back to thread

1764 points fatihky | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
DannyBee ◴[] No.12701869[source]
FWIW: As a director of engineering for Google, who interviews other directors of engineering for Google, none of these are on or related to the "director of engineering" interview guidelines or sheets.

These are bog standard SWE-SRE questions (particularly, SRE) at some companies, so my guess is he was really being evaluated for a normal SWE-SRE position.

IE maybe he applied to a position labeled director of engineering, but they decided to interview him for a different level/job instead.

But it's super-strange even then (i've literally reviewed thousands of hiring packets, phone screens, etc, and this is ... out there. I'm not as familiar with SRE hiring practices, admittedly, though i've reviewed enough SRE candidates to know what kind of questions they ask).

As for the answers themselves, i always take "transcripts" of interviews (or anything else) with a grain of salt, as there are always two sides to every story.

Particularly, when one side presents something that makes the other side look like a blithering idiot, the likelihood it's 100% accurate is, historically, "not great".

replies(28): >>12702181 #>>12702207 #>>12702219 #>>12702265 #>>12702346 #>>12702460 #>>12702555 #>>12702650 #>>12702692 #>>12702698 #>>12702714 #>>12702888 #>>12702998 #>>12703034 #>>12703135 #>>12703156 #>>12703184 #>>12703554 #>>12703778 #>>12704177 #>>12704657 #>>12705201 #>>12705560 #>>12705982 #>>12706518 #>>12707763 #>>12708151 #>>12714459 #
ozgung ◴[] No.12702650[source]
So you're saying Google's recruiters don't tell what position they are interviewing for and that they found a 20+ years experienced engineering manager holding patents on computer networking under-qualified for an ordinary site maintenance position. Well, that sounds like a dumb recruitment process.
replies(7): >>12702739 #>>12702813 #>>12702973 #>>12703024 #>>12703078 #>>12703204 #>>12704968 #
rb2k_ ◴[] No.12702973[source]
> they found a 20+ years experienced engineering manager holding patents on computer networking under-qualified for an ordinary site maintenance position.

To be fair, I've interviewed people at previous companies that had patents and 15 years at IBM on their CV and completely failed even the most basic system / coding questions. (fizzbuzz style).

There are a lot of people that read great on the CV but then it turns out that they mostly kept a chair warm and organized meetings over the last decade without actually retaining any technical knowledge.

Not saying that was the case here, but it happens and it's probably worth checking people on their stated qualifications.

replies(5): >>12703176 #>>12703177 #>>12703582 #>>12703619 #>>12706484 #
johndubchak ◴[] No.12703176[source]
Perhaps that suggests you're giving them the wrong interview.
replies(4): >>12703263 #>>12703279 #>>12703318 #>>12703423 #
optimuspaul ◴[] No.12703263[source]
I agree. Why the hell would you ask someone at that level basic questions like fizz buzz? It's absurd. I also tend to shy away from asking coding questions in interviews, they don't tell me much about aptitude for critical thinking and culture fit. Skills can be taught but culture is much harder. ... But I'm not saying to throw in some questions that don't prove that they are actually competent, just be casual about it.
replies(5): >>12703458 #>>12703574 #>>12703706 #>>12703819 #>>12707873 #
exDM69 ◴[] No.12703706[source]
My company has been giving the fizzbuzz for students applying for internship, with any language they wish and extra for style points.

The results speak for themself. All the good applicants do it in no time, without hesitation and give a perfect answer and usually some style points on top. The ones who have second grade coding skills have always something wrong with it.

It's a good 5 minute test whether someone can code or not. It shouldn't be the only test, of course.

replies(1): >>12704582 #
1. throw_away_777 ◴[] No.12704582[source]
How do you know the people failing your interview process have "second grade coding skills"? The fundamental challenge with evaluating interviews is that companies don't hire people who flunk interviews - so there is no easy way to reliably measure the false negative rate. Does fizzbuzz ability correlate with coding ability? Maybe, but you'd have to hire people who fail fizzbuzz to definitely answer the question. I know that I use google extensively at work - interviews don't allow you to use search.
replies(4): >>12705382 #>>12705985 #>>12707163 #>>12708448 #
2. zeven7 ◴[] No.12705382[source]
I'm not sure about OP, but there is a tech company that has said it hires people who fail their interviews occasionally to see if their interview process is working. That company is the one that is the subject of this thread.
replies(1): >>12705448 #
3. throw_away_777 ◴[] No.12705448[source]
Can you cite your source? I haven't seen this anywhere.
replies(1): >>12705465 #
4. zeven7 ◴[] No.12705465{3}[source]
I haven't read it myself, but I heard that's what Laszlo Bock said in Work Rules.
5. empath75 ◴[] No.12705985[source]
We actually do let people use Google during our code interviews. They'll use it at work, so why not.

We do watch them work though so if they just copy and paste from stack overflow and they don't understand the problem, it's pretty obvious.

replies(1): >>12708452 #
6. exDM69 ◴[] No.12707163[source]
These were done in recruitment events at universities and the applicants were free to access Google if they wished. Some guys even went to the computer lab to do the assignments on a computer and then return a printout of their code. And we were completely fine with that.

But really, if an applicant needs to google to solve FizzBuzz, they don't have a firm grasp of the fundamentals. You're required to write one loop, a few if/then/elses and understand how the modulo operator works. Our jobs are much more demanding than that.

7. ◴[] No.12708448[source]
8. Kurtz79 ◴[] No.12708452[source]
It depends on the questions.

If you require using real, compiler correct language in a coding exercise, and the problem is not trivial, than allowing search is more than fair.

But the point of Fizzbuzz is being such trivial problem that it really should not require nothing more than an understanding of basic programming logic and constructs.

In my (limited) experience, there were instances where the candidate could not even decide on a programming language to use, I told them to use pseudo-code and they still flunked horribly.

Aside from that, Fizbuzz is rarely a dealbreaking task in itself, it tends to correlate pretty well with the overall performance, I would be surprised seeing someone failing fizzbuzz and excelling in the rest of the interview (once again, in my limited experience).