> Can we stop calling it "failing" when a company decides you're not a good fit? If you go on a date and don't get asked for a 2nd, did you fail the date? You're not just what they're looking for right now; not everything has to be a failure.
Fair point.
> I'm sorry, what? He thinks it takes one hour to teach someone data structures? We sure are wasting our time with those multiple college courses and hundreds of textbooks on the subject then. We should just get this guy to spend one hour imparting all necessary knowledge into everyone.
There's a difference between understanding how to implement one and just knowing how to use one that's already been written by someone and when to use it.
> Human biases are much more likely to work against you if the interviewers have not spent time trying to come up with a consistent test that they give everyone. Does the author think human bias is absent from non-technical interviews? The less standard your hiring methods are, the more bias you'll have.
Fair, but alas I don't know the rigors they have put their hiring process through. If I were a betting man, I'd still say that if we measured all processes using programming tests, the majority of successful candidates had working output by the end.
> I don't know who Darren Kopp is, so maybe I'm about to get an army of replies saying he's their coding role model
I've been told this by everyone who knows me
> but this is an article about whether code interviews work or not, and he's basically saying "if they don't hire me, who will definitely become one of the best employees they've ever had, then their coding interview process must suck". The other possibility is that Darren Kopp just isn't actually tremendously more stellar than everyone else and coding interviews are actually kinda working. For his argument to work, he has to be one of the best possible candidates for every job he's applying for. I just kinda doubt that.
Actually the only conclusion I have after writing the post is that I am not talented at interviewing. I do believe coding interviews have flaws for how they are used, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or right. I agree with your first statement, maybe I'm just not a good fit.
Perhaps both of us are correct as I consider coding interviews more of an audition than anything else. If Tom Cruise auditions for a part and doesn't get it, does that mean he's a bad actor? Likely not.
Fair point.
> I'm sorry, what? He thinks it takes one hour to teach someone data structures? We sure are wasting our time with those multiple college courses and hundreds of textbooks on the subject then. We should just get this guy to spend one hour imparting all necessary knowledge into everyone.
There's a difference between understanding how to implement one and just knowing how to use one that's already been written by someone and when to use it.
> Human biases are much more likely to work against you if the interviewers have not spent time trying to come up with a consistent test that they give everyone. Does the author think human bias is absent from non-technical interviews? The less standard your hiring methods are, the more bias you'll have.
Fair, but alas I don't know the rigors they have put their hiring process through. If I were a betting man, I'd still say that if we measured all processes using programming tests, the majority of successful candidates had working output by the end.
> I don't know who Darren Kopp is, so maybe I'm about to get an army of replies saying he's their coding role model
I've been told this by everyone who knows me
> but this is an article about whether code interviews work or not, and he's basically saying "if they don't hire me, who will definitely become one of the best employees they've ever had, then their coding interview process must suck". The other possibility is that Darren Kopp just isn't actually tremendously more stellar than everyone else and coding interviews are actually kinda working. For his argument to work, he has to be one of the best possible candidates for every job he's applying for. I just kinda doubt that.
Actually the only conclusion I have after writing the post is that I am not talented at interviewing. I do believe coding interviews have flaws for how they are used, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong or right. I agree with your first statement, maybe I'm just not a good fit.
Perhaps both of us are correct as I consider coding interviews more of an audition than anything else. If Tom Cruise auditions for a part and doesn't get it, does that mean he's a bad actor? Likely not.
(I'm Tom Cruise here, btw).