*block your path*

*block your path*
*ruins your interview*
>psssh, nothing personal kid

what?

is this about the distaste for whiteboard interviews?

do you guys just browse hackernews and reddit and shit on a two-week delay?

what?

is this about the distaste for whiteboard interviews?

do you guys just browse hackernews and reddit and shit on a two-week delay?

what?

is this about the distaste for whiteboard interviews?

do you guys just browse hackernews and reddit and shit on a two-week delay?

It's a meme mocking people who find it hard

>mocking
>implying it isn't just making fun of how stupid and worthless whiteboard interviews actually are
just cause some old faggot in the 80's needed to know bubble sort on the spot, doesn't mean that you need to do it in 2017 without any external sources. Why should you invent the wheel twice?

CUZ WE NEED TO WATCH YA THINK!

>tfw agree with whiteboard interviews to a degree.

Being a math major without a comp sci bg, it gave me an edge when compared to other candidates. It separated me from the rest.

But I'm also biased. I'd orgasm from exams and shit. I base(d) my self worth and esteem on grades and the respect of my mentors/peers, but never myself.

You sound like a total slut desu ne senpai faggot

>Math major

Can you prove 2+2≠4?

The eternal whiteboard...

Behind every failed interview!

>tfw never had to do the whole whiteboard thing for either job i've had

apply to non-tech companies if you are scared of this, my first job with State Farm the only technical questions they asked were things pertaining to my resume

there are lots of good ways to see how people think. hell, ask creative questions and see what rabbit holes they go down instead.

i'm a PhD student. in the last month or two i've interviewed at least 30 undergrads for this summer research program thing. my basic format is:
- ask about a recent technical thing they did
- ask them to brainstorm an open-ended problem that my advisor and i are currently actually working on

the first question is the technical competence evaluation. just tell me a story about the thing. i make it clear that a class project is totally fine (and honestly all i'm expecting). i look at transcripts or relevant coursework on their resume or something to get a feel for what they might want to talk about. then i ask basic questions.

one example: a student was telling me about a project they worked on where they built something with react, but the relevant course at my university teaches angular (the MEAN stack), so i casually asked "oh cool, but why react? doesn't 142 teach angular? wasn't that kind of a steep learning curve?"

the student had nothing for me. i don't need a convincing answer, but something vaguely resembling an opinion would have basically sealed the deal in his favor (the ideal answer would have looked like "we wanted to learn something new, and react's break from the MVC model seemed interesting" or something).

the second question evaluates this flimsy ~how they think~ shit. make it clear there's no right or wrong answer and you're just brainstorming. lower the stakes. you're still evaluating them based on this, but don't make them feel like it's do-or-die. then have a genuine conversation working through the problem with them. they might not come up with anything new, but you'll see the path they take. if they come up with an insight that you hadn't thought of before, then 1) holy shit, and 2) great, hire them. or don't. whatever.

>hiring someone to program without actually seeing that they can program
they don't actually expect you to know these algorithms on the spot. they can describe it to you easily and that won't hurt your chances (or it shouldn't, maybe some people really expect you to have random algos memorized?)

Not all people take their time with interviews.
I'm sure people have a story or two about HR knowing nothing about the subject and just comparing your answer with a paper they have.

a lot of technical interviews basically expect you to know technical trivia off the top of your head. the generous thinking, i think, is that if you needed to look up every single little thing then you'd be wasting a lot of time looking up documentation you should already know, but the reality is that it's gotten to such an extreme point that people memorize arcane shit that they'll never need to know off hand outside of the context of an interview.

i think you only really need to know the exact answers if you have no professional experience. if you're just out of school you should know that stuff anyways since you just learned it. once you have a few years under your belt, interviewers will be much more lenient as they're just testing to make sure you aren't lying about your background.

HR shouldn't be giving interviews except — perhaps — for culture fit. if there's a routine evaluation that can be done, have HR comb through applicants' resumes and stuff to filter out people who are clearly not qualified, but don't half ass the interview process.

your most valuable assets at a company or in a team or in a research project are brains. an interview that's an hour long (instead of 30 minutes or 15 minutes) isn't that unreasonable a cost (assuming, of course, that the 60-minute-long interview actually yields better results).

In a matter of days it become a cancerous reddit tier meme.

what?

is this about the distaste for whiteboard interviews?

do you guys just browse hackernews and reddit and shit on a two-week delay?

In 5 minutes, can you show by example a graphical quick mockup rundown of your implementation of how you will maximise the company's synergy and move towards innovation while still adhering to culture and not reinventing the wheel?

In 5 minutes, can you show by example a graphical quick mockup rundown of your implementation of how you will maximise the company's synergy and move towards innovation while still adhering to culture and not reinventing the wheel?