This is why I don't ask candidates to code. I ask them to describe concepts, articulate trade-offs, and/or walk me through their process of solving a real problem (usually something I've just solved so that I'm intimately familiar with the space).
I hired someone who did brilliantly on walking and talking through all the conceptual issues. Turned out they couldn't code, and they couldn't touch someone else's code without breaking it.
Yeah, but then there's that whole other class of people who are great but can't deal with the pressure and awkwardness of coding on a whiteboard in an interview.
No interview process can be perfect, so unfortunately the trick is in correcting hiring mistakes early.
> people who are great but can't deal with the pressure
> and awkwardness of coding on a whiteboard in an interview.
We try really, really hard to allow for that. We try to get people talking first, and make moving to the whiteboard or paper or whatever part of the discussion, rather than propping them up and saying "Go!".
Additionally, in our line of work sometimes you have to program in a team under extreme time pressures. We've found that most people who can't talk about programming while sketching ideas and solutions in interview, can't do it for real.
The upshot is that you should always be testing for what you actually want. We want programmers who can design solutions, work in a team, get stuff done, ask questions when unsure, make decisions when necessary, change their mind when appropriate, and write programs that work. That's what we try to test for in interview, and before.
What do you mean grammatically incorrect? The singular they was used by Shakespeare for heaven's sake, its not some recent invention. Rather, the prejudice against the singular they (and the split infinitive) stem from when people looked down on ways in which English deviated from the rules of Latin. Personally, I think its silly to call any construct thats been in use for hundreds of years among educated people% and serves a useful purpose "ungrammatical".
%The Chicago Manual of style lists "Addison, Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare."
Using "they" for an ambiguous singular pronoun is perfectly good English. It was deprecated by Victorian grammarians who wanted English to be like Latin (the same people who ordered us not to boldly split infinitives).
Comments
This is why I don't ask candidates to code. I ask them to describe concepts, articulate trade-offs, and/or walk me through their process of solving a real problem (usually something I've just solved so that I'm intimately familiar with the space).
I hired someone who did brilliantly on walking and talking through all the conceptual issues. Turned out they couldn't code, and they couldn't touch someone else's code without breaking it.
I need to see someone code.
Yeah, but then there's that whole other class of people who are great but can't deal with the pressure and awkwardness of coding on a whiteboard in an interview.
No interview process can be perfect, so unfortunately the trick is in correcting hiring mistakes early.
Additionally, in our line of work sometimes you have to program in a team under extreme time pressures. We've found that most people who can't talk about programming while sketching ideas and solutions in interview, can't do it for real.
The upshot is that you should always be testing for what you actually want. We want programmers who can design solutions, work in a team, get stuff done, ask questions when unsure, make decisions when necessary, change their mind when appropriate, and write programs that work. That's what we try to test for in interview, and before.
Fair enough, I do see where you're coming from. Definitely agree on the "testing for what you actually want" point.
Like the subtle use of the word 'they', incorrect grammatically,correct politically
What do you mean grammatically incorrect? The singular they was used by Shakespeare for heaven's sake, its not some recent invention. Rather, the prejudice against the singular they (and the split infinitive) stem from when people looked down on ways in which English deviated from the rules of Latin. Personally, I think its silly to call any construct thats been in use for hundreds of years among educated people% and serves a useful purpose "ungrammatical".
%The Chicago Manual of style lists "Addison, Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare."
Using "they" for an ambiguous singular pronoun is perfectly good English. It was deprecated by Victorian grammarians who wanted English to be like Latin (the same people who ordered us not to boldly split infinitives).
Didn't realize this usage of singular they was correct-thanks for pointing that out! :-)