A candidate has an impressive
STEM field educational background,
say, Bachelor's, Master's, or Ph.D.
degrees, has peer-reviewed publications
of original research in the STEM fields
including in computer science, has taught
computer science in world famous US
research universities, has created
original, fast algorithms in computer
science, has written successful software
for a wide variety of applications in
a wide variety of programming languages,
and, then, somehow needs to learn some
additional, special lessons on "how
to pass a programming interview"?
Such an interview is by the Queen in
Alice in Wonderland or from someone
well qualified in computing?
Why the heck the needs for special
lessons to do what the candidate
has been doing successfully for years?
Because passing a programming interview is not what the candidate has been doing for years.
Interviews are artificial, stressful situations which in many cases do not resemble what you will actually be doing at your job.
Like well-known blogger Steve Yegge once commented about Google's interview process, sometimes it gets so bizarre that two interviewers in your queue wouldn't have hired each other! Focusing on the details one interviewer likes will make you lose points with the other. He calls this phenomenon "the interview anti-loop".
I guess being well-drilled about common questions and tricks helps counterbalance some of the pitfalls of the interview process.
So, right, programming interviews are
from Alice in Wonderland and not
about programming.
Gee, I'm glad I'm programming, for my own
startup. Wait while I ask my founder, CEO
if my programming is good -- got an answer
back right away, my programming is fine!
> So, right, programming interviews are from Alice in Wonderland and not about programming.
I don't understand your irony. No-one is saying that. We're saying that programming interviews are often not ONLY about programming, and unfortunately the parts NOT about programming tend to overshadow the parts that are. Therefore, interviewing requires preparation.
Are you bitter that programming interviews are like this? If so, fine. So am I.
Are you saying that programming interviews are NOT like this and do not require training for? You are mistaken. It's a fact of the world, whether we like it or not.
Or are you saying you lucked out and didn't have to go through this hell? If so, congrats! It's known to happen. But still, it pays to be prepared for the average case of difficult, stressful interviews.
I'm saying that programming interviews
have descended into tea leaf reading.
People with obviously high qualifications
are being rejected for no good reasons.
The situation was not always so.
Apparently the people doing the interviews
are more interested in being nasty than
hiring people to get more work done. For
this situation to hold, there has to
be not much demand and a big supply. So,
the process is free to descend into totally
silly games. It's the Queen in Alice in
Wonderland and "Off with their heads".
Academia is not industry programming. So the candidate had highly specialized knowledge and skills, big whoop. Guess how much of my original academic research I use? None. If that candidate wants to use those skills they should go into research.
Why the heck the needs for special lessons to do what the candidate has been doing successfully for years?