Wrong question - the right question is "which companies don't have the typical whiteboard interview". Mine didn't, and it's a regular software engineer job.
Here's a list of some - never used it but was on here a while back:
Wrong question - the right question is "which companies don't have the typical whiteboard interview".
Wrong assumption - the majority of my on-site interviews don't even use whiteboards. They involve discussing real world problems and work experiences with me. I still do not get offers from them.
To be honest, I agree with the parent that the question is wrong. No company wants employees that are bad at interviewing. No company wants employees that are bad at anything, in fact.
Maybe it helps to contact the company that rejected you and ask them why they rejected you. This would allow you to narrow down your weaknesses and improve these skills. I've never tried this myself, so I'm not sure how common such a request is, but it seems like a sensible thing to do.
Doesn't cost anything to try though. We actually do attempt to give straightforward answers to candidates that are not a good fit, although we are a smaller company that doesn't have the concerns that a large corporation has
Or any answers. At least for the US, I've read before here on HN that it may be due to the company's fear of being litigated against for some sort of discrimination.
Not the parent, but I'm someone with quite a lot of social anxiety. I fall apart when I have to give presentations (working on this skill) or I'm in a high-pressure social setting. Everyone does to some degree, but for myself and others like me, it's an order of magnitude greater.
I can certainly work with a team and I can program at least as well as most of my peers, but interviews are difficult for me.
You could go find your nearest open-mic night and sing/play for the audience. You can read poetry or sing karaoke.
It's probably going to suck the first time you do this. However, keep doing it. Eventually, you will get more comfortable and confident. It takes lots of practice.
I did a lot of stage performances as a musician. I used to vomit before going on stage. Eventually, I got used to it. Eventually, I was able to interact with the crowd. Eventually, I got comfortable. This confidence helped with many other areas of my life. It did take work and pushing through the discomfort and fear. It was not easy.
I found going to acting school a help. I doubt I could have mustered up the courage to do stuff in front of an audience back then, but being given a script to perform in front of a small group of other acting students was much easier.
How would you even go by looking people to do this? Especially someone familiar with the tech field for example? "hiring manager technology" doesn't return the best results in trying to find someone.
Gonna have to talk to friends and coworkers. I've done this (mock interviews for people who are bad at interviewing) for friends and even friend-of-a-friends, but I wouldn't want to be on a searchable directory of such people.
Yeah that seems to be the common theme, "Ask friends and coworkers" I guess I need to do a bit more networking at meetups at such. Its been word of mouth from previous clients for all these years so I never bother to reach out to build a network.
I kind of hate that as well, given that I maintain multiple popular libraries, have a ton of code on Github (of actual web apps that you can use right now), etc. What can a take-home coding challenge tell you that you won't learn from actually looking at my production code?
So interview for that. I have yet to interview at a tech company that does so. And yet, 100% believe that whiteboard coding and/or "take-home projects" are necessary for experienced candidates.
Agreed to a certain extent. Like I said its based on how senior we think the developer is. If going through your Github shows us that we dont have to evaluate on certain skills, then we wont. Also our coding homework is not typical. See my answer to @amorphid below.
Yes, and that's why sites/books like Cracking the Coding Interview exist. While I don't deny that they have some merit, they don't cover the full picture of what is needed.
I've had a few people (beginners looking for a job) ask me for help on just those sorts of interview questions - and not being interested in spending time on learning the underlying fundamentals, though I had mentored them (on mentoring sites like Codementor) some on those areas earlier (at their request). Misguided, to say the least. Told them that that (just doing the interview prep) is not a good approach, because, even if they manage to clear/pass the interview, with or without my or others' help, they will likely get found out soon for their lack of fundamental knowledge, soon after getting a job.
And even the whiteboard questions themselves are often taken straight from a site like Leetcode or TopCoder. Unless you're interviewing at a big five company, you're essentially performing a standardized test.
Yes, exactly. Companies treat this stuff exactly the way universities treat the SAT/ACT. But I'd alter your statement: the big players are the worst with this stuff. They care about nothing more than your ability to regurgitate CTCI answers at a whiteboard. One mistake on a six-hour loop, and you're toast.
This is awesome and to answer your question probably not much. But also you're in the minority of applicants — most don't have as much available open source.
I can't speak for OPs company, but we did have a candidate recently with extensive GitHub material, so in his case we did not bother with our take home.
As a former tech recruiter, I can say there's a good chance interviewing team won't bother reviewing your coding exercise. It's easy to ask you to complete an exercise, but reviewing the exercise, let alone giving meaningful feedback, requires work. Teams aren't always willing/interested/able to put in the work review N take home projects.
Here's an example:
- apply to job
- recruiter does phone screen
- you're asked you to complete exercise before an interviewer has reviewed your profile/resume/application
- you put a bunch of work into doing exercise well and return it
- your exercise is not reviewed at all because: the job has been filled, the job has been closed, an interviewer didn't like your resume/CV/application, the recruiter misplaces your exercise, the team is too busy to review any exercises, etc.
I should explain what our coding exercise is. Its a decent size project on bitbucket that we ask developers to install. Yes, just install. No real coding required. Usually takes between 30 minutes to 8 hours. What we are looking for are specific things: a) Can you read and follow the installation instructions AND are you familiar with Git and NPM? b) If you face some installation issue, are you willing to spend the effort to solve it? c) Can you read code? Because sometimes a library wont work for you. So you might have to change the version or find a workaround. d) For more mid to senior engineers, we expect them to ask detailed questions on our choices of architecture, libraries and suggest alternatives and reasoning behind their choices.
So its not really a coding exercise where we ask someone to fix a bug or write code and then evaluate their coding style. Its a little different in that we are looking for problem solving skills in a startup environment. I don't think this approach will work for a large company where every developer has a specific role. But it works well for us.
I should explain what our coding exercise is. Its a decent size project on bitbucket that we ask developers to install. Yes, just install. No real coding required. Usually takes between 30 minutes to 8 hours. What we are looking for are specific things: a) Can you read and follow the installation instructions AND are you familiar with Git and NPM? b) If you face some installation issue, are you willing to spend the effort to solve it? c) Can you read code? Because sometimes a library wont work for you.
Interesting. I think that is one good approach. Because I've come across many people (aspiring to be software workers) who 1) cannot even follow clearly specified instructions to the letter (a basic skill for a software person), and/or 2) cannot figure out ways to deviate from those instructions in meaningful ways, if they do not work.
Seems like it's a decent way to verify spurious claims that are not well confirmed in a spoken portion of the job interview. It feels like a FizzBuzz version of environment knowledge and tools skills.
The kind of coding tests I don't like are the ones that seem too onerous and involved for the given role. I have recently phone interviewed with a company, which they don't make their own software as a revenue source but build software for other clients. I talked over the phone with one of the lead programmers, discussed my skills, situations related to my work experience, etc.
Afterwards, he issued me a coding exercise with a VERY DETAILED .pdf document that felt uncomfortably close to a request for proposal and summaries of requirements. I hesitated and replied back about this. They assured me that this is not unpaid work and that everyone has to take this same test, in the language of their choosing. The test was intended to produce code for a MVC web app that they can evaluate. So I guess they really wanted sample code, despite having already produced other samples from Github, and discussed my real-world MVC work projects from my perspective as a mid-level developer (including one where I had architectural control).
I think the most disappointing thing, though, is that this long test is mandatory for everyone that they interview. So, the responses and decisions you make in the phone interview portion don't seem to have any real impact on the next step in the process. Someone could have a highly popular library on Github and they could still say, okay you gotta take this test. Non-trivial tests should be tailor made to a person's own experience.
If you're going to ask me to do a project that takes n hours, either I'm going to reciprocate and require the same of you, or you're going to pay my consulting rate to do it.
I suspect every good candidate had the same approach. If you're getting people to do this for free, you're not getting very good applicants.
In this market, the people you're interviewing are far more desirable than you are.
One of the best interviews I ever went on was a pair coding exercise. The interviewer asked me to come in for a couple hours, and we worked through a problem together. The "my time is your time" vibe was really nice. An interviewer wouldn't he able to scale that kind of interviewing technique unless they were upfront with candidates about what they'd he asked to do, and had a reasonable level of confidence that a candidate would have a reasonable shot at getting the job. I really liked it, and it demonstrated that the interviewer had thought about the interview in advance.
I'm willing to do take home projects when I know how they'll be evaluated. If you are willing to ask me to commit my time to something, and let me know what I'm getting for my investment of time, that goes a long way.
As an interviewer, I tend to avoid paying applicants. It just feels odd. Instead, I try to make the opportunity (interview plus potential job) as enticing as I can. Once it gets out that an that an interviewee pays interviewees, I'd be concerned that I'd attract "professional" interviewees who just want the money. As a blood bank, I wouldn't pay people to donate blood either for reasons that feel similar.
Everyone is proud of themselves for not literally using a whiteboard these days, but they still want you to write code while someone watches. I think for a lot of people, in spirit that is not so different from whiteboards.
Wrong question - the right question is "which companies don't have the typical whiteboard interview"
Wrong question. The right question is "which companies actually respond to you within a week of application submission". Those "reapply in six months if you don't hear anything" emails tell me a LOT about a company's real priorities.
Comments
Wrong question - the right question is "which companies don't have the typical whiteboard interview". Mine didn't, and it's a regular software engineer job.
Here's a list of some - never used it but was on here a while back:
https://github.com/poteto/hiring-without-whiteboards
Wrong question - the right question is "which companies don't have the typical whiteboard interview".
Wrong assumption - the majority of my on-site interviews don't even use whiteboards. They involve discussing real world problems and work experiences with me. I still do not get offers from them.
To be honest, I agree with the parent that the question is wrong. No company wants employees that are bad at interviewing. No company wants employees that are bad at anything, in fact.
Maybe it helps to contact the company that rejected you and ask them why they rejected you. This would allow you to narrow down your weaknesses and improve these skills. I've never tried this myself, so I'm not sure how common such a request is, but it seems like a sensible thing to do.
I don't think you will get very straight answers from most.
Doesn't cost anything to try though. We actually do attempt to give straightforward answers to candidates that are not a good fit, although we are a smaller company that doesn't have the concerns that a large corporation has
Or any answers. At least for the US, I've read before here on HN that it may be due to the company's fear of being litigated against for some sort of discrimination.
Or even a response for that matter.
Or, if you do get a response, it's usually a "can't sue me" copout like "not enough experience" or "wrong cultural fit".
This seems like a good interview process. If you're qualified for the position, then what part of the interview is working against you?
Not the parent, but I'm someone with quite a lot of social anxiety. I fall apart when I have to give presentations (working on this skill) or I'm in a high-pressure social setting. Everyone does to some degree, but for myself and others like me, it's an order of magnitude greater.
I can certainly work with a team and I can program at least as well as most of my peers, but interviews are difficult for me.
Would you like some unsolicited advice?
You could go find your nearest open-mic night and sing/play for the audience. You can read poetry or sing karaoke.
It's probably going to suck the first time you do this. However, keep doing it. Eventually, you will get more comfortable and confident. It takes lots of practice.
I did a lot of stage performances as a musician. I used to vomit before going on stage. Eventually, I got used to it. Eventually, I was able to interact with the crowd. Eventually, I got comfortable. This confidence helped with many other areas of my life. It did take work and pushing through the discomfort and fear. It was not easy.
This may work for you.
I found going to acting school a help. I doubt I could have mustered up the courage to do stuff in front of an audience back then, but being given a script to perform in front of a small group of other acting students was much easier.
A public speaking course may also help. Things like that get you used to working through discomfort while maintaining a level of concentration.
Can you find a nearby hiring manager—someone who hires regularly—to give you an interview and tell you why you wouldn’t be hired?
I’d be happy to do this for acquaintances near me (Cambridge, Mass.)
How would you even go by looking people to do this? Especially someone familiar with the tech field for example? "hiring manager technology" doesn't return the best results in trying to find someone.
Gonna have to talk to friends and coworkers. I've done this (mock interviews for people who are bad at interviewing) for friends and even friend-of-a-friends, but I wouldn't want to be on a searchable directory of such people.
Yeah that seems to be the common theme, "Ask friends and coworkers" I guess I need to do a bit more networking at meetups at such. Its been word of mouth from previous clients for all these years so I never bother to reach out to build a network.
We don't have a typical white boarding interview. Based on your experience, we might send you a take home coding challenge.
I kind of hate that as well, given that I maintain multiple popular libraries, have a ton of code on Github (of actual web apps that you can use right now), etc. What can a take-home coding challenge tell you that you won't learn from actually looking at my production code?
How you go about solving boring day-to-day business-relevant problems in a way that can be directly compared across candidates.
So interview for that. I have yet to interview at a tech company that does so. And yet, 100% believe that whiteboard coding and/or "take-home projects" are necessary for experienced candidates.
Agreed to a certain extent. Like I said its based on how senior we think the developer is. If going through your Github shows us that we dont have to evaluate on certain skills, then we wont. Also our coding homework is not typical. See my answer to @amorphid below.
They know that what you wrote on the whiteboard was definitely your work.
Nearly all "good" whiteboard coders are regurgitating what they've memorized from a book or a website. It's an industry-wide joke.
Yes, and that's why sites/books like Cracking the Coding Interview exist. While I don't deny that they have some merit, they don't cover the full picture of what is needed.
I've had a few people (beginners looking for a job) ask me for help on just those sorts of interview questions - and not being interested in spending time on learning the underlying fundamentals, though I had mentored them (on mentoring sites like Codementor) some on those areas earlier (at their request). Misguided, to say the least. Told them that that (just doing the interview prep) is not a good approach, because, even if they manage to clear/pass the interview, with or without my or others' help, they will likely get found out soon for their lack of fundamental knowledge, soon after getting a job.
And even the whiteboard questions themselves are often taken straight from a site like Leetcode or TopCoder. Unless you're interviewing at a big five company, you're essentially performing a standardized test.
Yes, exactly. Companies treat this stuff exactly the way universities treat the SAT/ACT. But I'd alter your statement: the big players are the worst with this stuff. They care about nothing more than your ability to regurgitate CTCI answers at a whiteboard. One mistake on a six-hour loop, and you're toast.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=ctci+coding+full+form
for those who don't know the acronym.
This is awesome and to answer your question probably not much. But also you're in the minority of applicants — most don't have as much available open source.
I can't speak for OPs company, but we did have a candidate recently with extensive GitHub material, so in his case we did not bother with our take home.
But, but, looking at your code requires effort on their part.
As a former tech recruiter, I can say there's a good chance interviewing team won't bother reviewing your coding exercise. It's easy to ask you to complete an exercise, but reviewing the exercise, let alone giving meaningful feedback, requires work. Teams aren't always willing/interested/able to put in the work review N take home projects.
Here's an example:
- apply to job
- recruiter does phone screen
- you're asked you to complete exercise before an interviewer has reviewed your profile/resume/application
- you put a bunch of work into doing exercise well and return it
- your exercise is not reviewed at all because: the job has been filled, the job has been closed, an interviewer didn't like your resume/CV/application, the recruiter misplaces your exercise, the team is too busy to review any exercises, etc.
I should explain what our coding exercise is. Its a decent size project on bitbucket that we ask developers to install. Yes, just install. No real coding required. Usually takes between 30 minutes to 8 hours. What we are looking for are specific things: a) Can you read and follow the installation instructions AND are you familiar with Git and NPM? b) If you face some installation issue, are you willing to spend the effort to solve it? c) Can you read code? Because sometimes a library wont work for you. So you might have to change the version or find a workaround. d) For more mid to senior engineers, we expect them to ask detailed questions on our choices of architecture, libraries and suggest alternatives and reasoning behind their choices.
So its not really a coding exercise where we ask someone to fix a bug or write code and then evaluate their coding style. Its a little different in that we are looking for problem solving skills in a startup environment. I don't think this approach will work for a large company where every developer has a specific role. But it works well for us.
Interesting. I think that is one good approach. Because I've come across many people (aspiring to be software workers) who 1) cannot even follow clearly specified instructions to the letter (a basic skill for a software person), and/or 2) cannot figure out ways to deviate from those instructions in meaningful ways, if they do not work.
Seems like it's a decent way to verify spurious claims that are not well confirmed in a spoken portion of the job interview. It feels like a FizzBuzz version of environment knowledge and tools skills.
The kind of coding tests I don't like are the ones that seem too onerous and involved for the given role. I have recently phone interviewed with a company, which they don't make their own software as a revenue source but build software for other clients. I talked over the phone with one of the lead programmers, discussed my skills, situations related to my work experience, etc.
Afterwards, he issued me a coding exercise with a VERY DETAILED .pdf document that felt uncomfortably close to a request for proposal and summaries of requirements. I hesitated and replied back about this. They assured me that this is not unpaid work and that everyone has to take this same test, in the language of their choosing. The test was intended to produce code for a MVC web app that they can evaluate. So I guess they really wanted sample code, despite having already produced other samples from Github, and discussed my real-world MVC work projects from my perspective as a mid-level developer (including one where I had architectural control).
I think the most disappointing thing, though, is that this long test is mandatory for everyone that they interview. So, the responses and decisions you make in the phone interview portion don't seem to have any real impact on the next step in the process. Someone could have a highly popular library on Github and they could still say, okay you gotta take this test. Non-trivial tests should be tailor made to a person's own experience.
If you're going to ask me to do a project that takes n hours, either I'm going to reciprocate and require the same of you, or you're going to pay my consulting rate to do it.
I suspect every good candidate had the same approach. If you're getting people to do this for free, you're not getting very good applicants.
In this market, the people you're interviewing are far more desirable than you are.
One of the best interviews I ever went on was a pair coding exercise. The interviewer asked me to come in for a couple hours, and we worked through a problem together. The "my time is your time" vibe was really nice. An interviewer wouldn't he able to scale that kind of interviewing technique unless they were upfront with candidates about what they'd he asked to do, and had a reasonable level of confidence that a candidate would have a reasonable shot at getting the job. I really liked it, and it demonstrated that the interviewer had thought about the interview in advance.
I'm willing to do take home projects when I know how they'll be evaluated. If you are willing to ask me to commit my time to something, and let me know what I'm getting for my investment of time, that goes a long way.
As an interviewer, I tend to avoid paying applicants. It just feels odd. Instead, I try to make the opportunity (interview plus potential job) as enticing as I can. Once it gets out that an that an interviewee pays interviewees, I'd be concerned that I'd attract "professional" interviewees who just want the money. As a blood bank, I wouldn't pay people to donate blood either for reasons that feel similar.
What's your company? Are you ok with remote work? Thanks in advance!
How long would it take?
Everyone is proud of themselves for not literally using a whiteboard these days, but they still want you to write code while someone watches. I think for a lot of people, in spirit that is not so different from whiteboards.
Wrong question. The right question is "which companies actually respond to you within a week of application submission". Those "reapply in six months if you don't hear anything" emails tell me a LOT about a company's real priorities.