Source
r/cscareerquestions•
PolyGlotCoder

Would you be accepted for your Role, if you were to apply again.

So, I'm a relatively experienced developer ~15years. Starting to look around again and since the last time I looked (around 6 years ago) there's a lot of "google style" algorithmic test formats being used.

Which has got me thinking. If you tried applying for your Job having done it for however long. Do you think you can pass the interview without going back over the hefty tomes of information?

How many industries exist, in which people we know can do the job (i.e our current employee's) wouldn't pass the interview stage without serious levels of revision (of things you don't need)? Does anyone else feel the same?

Posted Jul 27, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

9141
prigmuttonStaff of the Magi Engineer•

There is no way I'd make it to my current position coming from outside right now, based on the interviewing I've seen done for roles junior to mine

87
[deleted]•

[deleted]

64
PolyGlotCoderOP•

Interesting. You kind of prove the point a bit. The algorithmic interviews should be for those jobs that require that skill set (like yours does.) There's alot of jobs in which it doesn't apply to the level asked, yet other skills are ignored in favor of these specific tests.

21
CodyEngel•

Unless tests are included, I don’t think people are banging out 1,000 lines of code a week unless it’s a brand new project.

10
CallMePyroSoftware Engineer - Google•

That’s very impressive. I would definitely need to brush up on stuff like 2d dynamic programming before I went out interviewing, but then again my day to day is a lot more about design and system integration than algorithmic complexity.

7
cepheuscloud•

Interested to know what position you currently hold, how many years of work it took you to reach that position. As someone who genuinely doesn't mind interview style questions, I'm interested to know what role you work at

3
[deleted]•

[deleted]

12
cepheuscloud•

awesome. glad to hear from industry vets

2
SomeGuyInSanJoseCa•

If I applied again? Probably not.

My company is FAANG-esque in terms of pay and interviews.

I would have probably failed 4 out of 5 times for my current company. I just happened to get people I connected with and questions I was able to get right away. I just happened to be interviewed by the one Dentist who didn't recommend Crest.

I've failed interviews way below me, and I've passed interviews I had no business passing. Sheer randomness would have probably made me fail again at my current company.

However, I probably applied to 10 FAANG-esque/Leetcode heavy companies, and I got 2 offers. Since I studied Leetcode recently, I would probably get 3-4 offers instead of 2 if I applied for 10 again.

46
iamsadtbhJunior (College)•

I always see you here, u/SomeGuyInSanJoseCa.

Love your replies.

4
software-dev123•

Probably not if they relied only on algorithmic tests.

I think companies that use the algorithmic tests haven't figured out how to screen candidates. The best companies I've worked for and that have the best "culture" are the ones that get to know each candidate. Then they pick one that has a personality that will fit well with the team and also has familiarity with the tech stack used.

13
Chemistry-Leather•

also has familiarity with the tech stack used.

Genuine question, what do you think people who are trying to change to a different tech stack should do? Say, from C++ to .Net or Java? Having been working with a legacy C++ codebase for the past two years, I find that outside of high frequency trading and game development most nowadays are looking for either Java or .Net experiences which I just don't have, and I'm not interested in either of the two industries, and I really hope I don't have to work with legacy stuff in the future if possible.

5
Slippn_Jimmy•

There's plenty of online resources for both available. .Net has grown a lot in popularity recently due to .Net Core and itnbeing made open source. Java, well the Oracle overlord, has kind of done the opposite which has been great press for .Net Core and Microsoft. I'm a C# dev, so I'm a bit partial towards C#. I really liked java at first but the more I worked with C#, I just grew to enjoy working with it much more.

If you have been programming in C++ for two years, you should be able to pick up either relative quickly, as they both have influence from C, at least syntactical, and C++. C# would be slightly closer in similarities just due to some of the features available in C# that you may be accustomed to in C++ that java doesn't offer. Hey...you can still use pointers, although it's frowned upon, in C#. Which I'm sure you're relieved to hear.

If you transitioned to working with either, it would probably just be different kinds of applications that you would have to more so adjust to. Not sure what the legacy C++ app you work with is but C# would be, most likely, more web based applications, there's a few different kinds, or APIs, unless you get stuck in the desktop world with WPF or even worse....winforms. There's supposed to be a replacement for both in .Net Core 5 I believe, whatever they're calling it. Where both core and framework become one, muahahah... Java could be desktop based, as it's major selling point for years was it cross platformness and there's plenty of companies still using Swing or, even worse...AWT. JavaFx had some WPF similarities but was dropped from recent JDK versions. Java work could also be more web focused as well and use something like spring.

The moves Microsoft has made, and the moves oracle hasn't, makes it hard to favor java over C# at this point. But that's just my opinion. If you can C++ then you can C# or java. HR might not understand that but pretty much any IT person should. So making the transition should be totally doable

4
Chemistry-Leather•

HR might not understand that but pretty much any IT person should. So making the transition should be totally doable

Yeah I got rejected by a few places because according to them I don't have enough web development/.Net experience. The old legacy system I worked on is this decades old monolith on-premise software so I don't really think the experience is that easily transferable. I just got two interview requests today though so I guess it's not impossible. Anyways, thanks for the reply 🦊

2
Slippn_Jimmy•

There's definitely some who will feel that way but others who will be more willing to take a chance. Best of luck

1
Labiologie•

Basing your hiring heavily on personality/culture fit also comes with its own problems. Usually ends up reducing diversity and increasing bias towards one group of people (so you get a company full of tech bros)

2
getarounderWeb Developer•

Hell no. What with the Leetcode arms-escalation, I'd probably have to grind for an entire year before being competitive in the current market.

6
Vok250canadian dev•

Definitely. My skills have advanced significantly since I got my current job.

3
DZ_tank•

Time to start sending out resumes.

1
ShadowWebDeveloperWeb Solutions Engineer•

Yes, probably. If I was a SWE, it would be a crapshoot.

2
totally-what•

Nope, got in before they started doing leetcode-style stuff.

2
oefd•

Considering I was hired about 2 months ago: I imagine I would get in again. It was also not 'google style' interview despite being for a fairly large and generally well considered company. The interview included on 'algorithmic' question that was effectively a fizzbuzz style question and a live-coding exercise, but one which wasn't about algorithmic complexity so much as meant to test that you either knew or could learn from documentation online some fairly basic and foundational stuff for the role. The rest was an extended talk about the implementation details of a previous project of mine.

There are companies with less aggravating interviews out there.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Geekofgeeks•

I’d pass, but that’s only because the interview questions were extremely easy (like explain pass by value vs pass by reference! Fairly easy job in general really lol.

1
DraurenFull Stack Engineer•

Yeah probably.

I learn new things and better methods/tools of doing things ever day.

I'm an Infra/Ops engineer.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
lasfkaj•

these are not "google style." Google didn't come up with them.

-2
thepobvSeñor Software Engineer (Minneapolis)•

He got his point across, everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. Sometimes semantics doesn't matter.

3
PolyGlotCoderOP•

So what would you call them?

1
mziegAmazon-NASA•

without serious levels of revision (of things you don't need)?

Those things are valuable to understand, and useful practice exercises, whether you encounter those specific use-cases in your daily activities or not. They're the CS equivalent of yoga and Tai Chi, and done for much the same reason. They're not meant to be "knowledge," they're meant to be warm-up and focusing activities.

Buy Cracking the Code Interview and read it. Consider it an anti-aging exercise.

-12
PolyGlotCoderOP•

This is the point though. You don't need them. There's a difference between knowing about these things and having a reference if you need them. And reciting them verbatim.

They really aren't an anti-aging exercise or yoga/tai chi. You miss the point. The amount of knowledge you gain after a number of years is massive and its practical knowledge about the job you'd be doing in the interview. Yet we ignore that, and ask about a dynamic programming (for example) that you don't use and will never use.

Why have a candidate that is really interested in those kinds of algorithms, yet employ them for a job that doesn't entail that? Do you see the point?

We're testing for things that aren't necessary.

For example in the Cracking the Coding Interview it states in one of the introductions:

"I'll give you a hint: your interviewers haven’t seen Red-Black Trees since they were in school either."

At that's the point. Surely there's a better way to test candidates for the job they will actually be doing. And I'm wondering how wide spread this actually is.

Btw, saying "Consider it an anti-aging exercise" is pretty insulting.

15
lost_send_berries•

I see where you're coming from, but think of it as just intelligence tests with a side of nerves and a dollop of luck. They do expect you to prepare, but some people prepare and still can't get it right.

1
beloved-lamp•

Consider it an anti-aging exercise" is pretty insulting.

It shouldn't be. We all need to take measures to keep our brains flexible as we age.

0†
MichelangeloJordan•

Agreed. Regardless of profession, everyone should do things to keep their mind sharp - it’s the only part of “you” that is “you”.

2
tshifter•

These things can be valuable to understand. But on the flip side, you can work for 15 years and never run into them. That doesn't sound like something that's very important to me.

9
pkpzp228Sr. Technical Architect @ Msoft•

As an experienced industry veteran... absolutely, are you kidding? If you've been doing you job for some time and you don't think you're in a good position to blast through the vetting for it, I think you're not being very successful in your role. The caveat being if you're several years into some entry level role and the expectation is that for the role you be able to get though generic coding challenges, then yeah you might struggle. But again if you have some tenure in your position and the only thing you have going for you is your ability to pass a coding challenge, you're doing it wrong.

With experience in your position, you should be exactly what your team is looking for. This is why experience is SO valuable and why so many entry level roles expect you to do arbitrary coding challenges to make up the for lack of it.

E: Of course I knew this would come with some downvotes, I feel bad for the people who genuinely feel that they would not be successful at obtaining their current role given direct experience in it, what you're saying is that other people would be a better fit to do your job than you. If that's you, you need to take a step back and re-evalute either your confidence to do your job or whether or not you're cut out for it.

-13
PolyGlotCoderOP•

You've missed the point. The point is that the interview process is incorrect. Not that you're not in a good position to blast through the vetting for it. I.e the feeling is that the Vetting a company "thinks" is correct, is incorrect for the role.

It is not saying you feel other people are better fit then you. Its that these people ARE NOT a better fit than you, but the vetting would make it seem that way.

9
pkpzp228Sr. Technical Architect @ Msoft•

No I get it, I too think the interview process is broken but I disagree. My point is that having experience doing a specific job puts your far ahead of your competition.

If you're a software dev working on API gateway at AWS and you had to interview for a that same role, your expertise in exactly the domain they are hiring for should put you so far ahead of your compititetion that just having the ability to demonstrate that you have the technical chops to work at AWS (which you already are) should make you a shoe in for it.

This is like saying that even with insider information you would fail to be profitiable in your investments becasue you lack the fundementals for trading. Disagree if you will, I get the circlejerk around how hard the interview process is, I've been through it many times over but at some point you need to learn how to leverage your strengths in order to make yourself marketable. Having experience on a product is immensly more valuable than any generic metric that used to vet a genaral candidte, this is how the industry works.

-6
PolyGlotCoderOP•

All your points...basically state that using only algorithmic testing to determine the best candidates for a blanked role is incorrect.

Which is my point.

Take your AWS example. In that example as a AWS expert, should you fail an interview if you couldn't invert the binary tree an optimal fashion? Again my point about how Technical interviews are broken. You have demonstrated that you feel that technical interviews should be about the role.

If you take the trader example. It's saying if you've been successful and profitable for 20years, but can't write the black scholes formula out you not a good trader - but your in equities and not options.

All of your points, point towards that companies should tailor interviews to the role.

So i'm not quite sure what we're disagreeing on.

Honestly the circle jerk about hard interviews can be broken, if the industry stop the nonsense.

5
pkpzp228Sr. Technical Architect @ Msoft•

In that example as a AWS expert, should you fail an interview if you couldn't invert the binary tree an optimal fashion?

If you're an AWS expert (meaning you work there) and you're failing an interview because you cant fizbuzz a technical question thats intended to vet an entry level candidate, than yeah you have bigger problems.

Honestly the circle jerk about hard interviews can be broken, if the industry stop the nonsense.

Yeah agree, I think what we're disagreeing on is that after having tenure in a role that it's exceptable to fail an interview for that role. Reality check, step up your game, if you're failing to meet the hiring requirements for the work you have... I can understand why you're having a hard time in the market.

-4