Whiteboard coding in software developer interviews.

[cguy]

Topic is closed; FYI Knuth, was the author of that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth

Donald Ervin Knuth (/kəˈnuːθ/[3] kə-nooth; born January 10, 1938) is an American computer scientist, mathematician, and professor emeritus at Stanford University.[7]

You should fix the wiki -- apparently, he's not an artist... Damn... neither are Larry Page or Sergey Brin.

 

[biometrics]

You guys are funny. There's a saying "In decent company, keep away from politics, religion, sex and programming languages."

 

[[)roi(]]

Frankly I don't see either the massive negativity with regards to WB tests, or more specifically, how WB tests are biased against women.

More specifically, they have not said why WB tests are biased and why other tests are not. They just claim that these tests are biased, but offer no proof for such. Neither do they offer any tests that any non WB tests would not be biased. Even if I assign you a written test to do, the way in which I construct the test could still have a subtle bias that could enable candidates of my preferred group to do better. Perhaps I like Asian gay men with long blonde hair - I'm sure I could construct a written programming test with a subtle bias towards them. Perhaps I'd share their hand more enthusiastically when I greeted them. Who knows? The point is, while there are valid criticisms of WB tests, I don't see bias as one of them.

This is such a diverse topic, that it's a bit impractical to try to write a single post with sufficient proof of POV, but as you know even then not everyone is going to agree, hence it's still being debated.

Yet many agree that its a terrible way to interview potential candidates; naturally not everyone dislikes it always for the same reasons; hence I've tried to posts a few of these. The https://www.womenwhocode.com group has been quite vocal about what's wrong including aspects related specifically to gender bias: you can find some of these meetups / presentations on youtube, beyond that Twitter is a good avenue to understand specific concerns. As to better alternatives to WB; many varying opinions, but still no concensus.

 

[[)roi(]]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth


You should fix the wiki -- apparently, he's not an artist... Damn... neither are Larry Page or Sergey Brin.

How little you read... there's a distinction made between the two titles; he like Hal Abelson and Edsger Dijkstra, and many others are the real Computer Scientists, if that's what you primarily do then you qualify.

Harold Abelson used to famously open MIT’s legendary “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs” lectures with the following statement:

I’d like to welcome you to this course on Computer Science. Actually, that’s a terrible way to start. Computer Science is a terrible name for this business. First of all, it’s not a science. It might be engineering, or it might be art, or we’ll actually see that computer so-called science actually has a lot in common with magic.

Anyway that's enough of this; real computer scientists are recognized and published individuals; just point to your wikipedia page if you believe I incorrectly painted you with an artisan's brush.

 

[cguy]

How little you read... there's a distinction made between the two titles; he like Hal Abelson and Edsger Dijkstra, and many others are the real Computer Scientists, if that's what you primarily do then you qualify.

Harold Abelson used to famously open MIT’s legendary “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs” lectures with the following statement:

Anyway that's enough of this; real computer scientists are recognized and published individuals; just point to your wikipedia page if you believe I incorrectly painted you with an artisan's brush.

What do you think is so different between what these guys do/did, and what the computer scientists at google do?

Oh, and I do have at least one Wikipedia page about my work.

 

[[)roi(]]

Can you produce concrete evidence to support that Apple has more stringent hiring requirements than FNB? I couldn't possibly see how such a thing could exist.

Some things to think about:
- Google's bread and butter is algorithms, Apple's bread and butter is design -- I don't know why you would even expect Apple to try compete with Google for computer scientists.

- The larger the supply of candidates applying to a company, the higher they raise the bar. From an employee's perspective, Apple is a second tier tech company -- lower compensation, fewer benefits, less interesting projects and less prestige (relative to Google, Facebook and a few "hot" smaller companies)

- Google's intense interview process, high bar, and heavy competition for positions are infamous -- if you aren't aware of this, you've been living under a rock.

- Anecdotally, when people left my old company, both being very large companies, naturally, many people went to Apple, and many went to Google. Most of the smarter guys went to Google, and most of the remainder went to Apple.

- Also anecdotally, I've never heard of someone failing the Apple interview, and passing the Google interview, but I have heard of the reverse numerous times

The anecdotes above aren't just "stuff I've seen as some guy somewhere", I was a Silicon Valley manager in a large company, where we would keep track of these things, so this actually adds up to a lot of samples.

As for being a "Google fan-boi" - I don't like Google's interview process, or hiring process, and don't particularly like the company, and don't expect that I would ever want to work there. They've been after me to interview for nearly 10 years, and I never have. Still, there's no denying their reputation in the valley, and that they've been hiring only top talent.

Speaking of avoidance, rather than reply coherently to any of my posts, you make random unsubstantiated accusations of "lots of assumptions", and even give bogus examples of assumptions, yet can't point out where I made them in the text when asked. You somehow seem to not understand the difference between being asked to apply a specific algorithm and to create a new algorithm. You seem to think that trees are some special thing that only computer scientists working in particular fields would understand, and keep drawing analogies between this and advanced compiler architecture. In this thread, and other threads, you simply ignore questions, and randomly rage on about some tangential issue. This brings me to only one conclusion: you must be Swa.

That was your statement not mine; how about you quote an article or two that presents a similar case, or how else did you arrive at your opinion.

 

[[)roi(]]

What do you think is so different between what these guys do/did, and what the computer scientists at google do?

Oh, and I do have at least one Wikipedia page about my work.

Did you miss the "and many others..." bit. Meaning I didn't discount anyone, but let's be clear many of those you think are scientists are probably closer to artisan than scientist, but that's not to say Google, Apple, Microsoft, ... don't employ people who have earned the title: scientist, they certainly do and if you look most have wikipedia pages with their contributions, or at the very least have been publically acknowledged for their breakthrough work in certain areas.

But remember even Knuth and Dijkstra were both self acknowledged programmers, Knuth even went so far as to call himself an artist, but remember they were also acknowledged by their peers for being scientists because of their contributions.

Example of Microsoft: the title of scientist is not something you just earn after getting your doctorate: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...earchers-as-fellows-distinguished-scientists/

 

[cguy]

That was your statement not mine; how about you quote an article or two that presents a similar case, or how else did you arrive at your opinion.

My opinion is based on the points I listed. There are some articles and QQ's that support it (below), but nothing beats first hand experience in the valley.
- http://www.cultofandroid.com/78092/the-google-interview-process-is-harder-but-less-horrible-than-apples/
- The question itself is more interesting than the answer: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Microsoft-Amazon-Facebook-Google-considered-better-place-to-work-for-a-software-engineer-than-Apple

 

[cguy]

Did you miss the "and many others..." bit. Meaning I didn't discount anyone, but let's be clear many of those you think are scientists are probably closer to artisan than scientist, but that's not to say Google, Apple, Microsoft, ... don't employ people who have earned the title: scientist, they certainly do and if you look most have wikipedia pages with their contributions, or at the very least have been publically acknowledged for their breakthrough work in certain areas.

But remember even Knuth and Dijkstra were both self acknowledged programmers, Knuth even went so far as to call himself an artist, but remember they were also acknowledged by their peers for being scientists because of their contributions.

Example of Microsoft: the title of scientist is not something you just earn after getting your doctorate: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...earchers-as-fellows-distinguished-scientists/

Most Google engineers are expected to work as scientists (as researchers, applying the scientific method), at least some of the time.

Um, and that article is about the title "Distinguished Scientist", which is something far more elite.

 

[[)roi(]]

My opinion is based on the points I listed. There are some articles and QQ's that support it (below), but nothing beats first hand experience in the valley.
- http://www.cultofandroid.com/78092/the-google-interview-process-is-harder-but-less-horrible-than-apples/
- The question itself is more interesting than the answer: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Microsoft-Amazon-Facebook-Google-considered-better-place-to-work-for-a-software-engineer-than-Apple

Surely it not justs down to an "Android" site and Quora, personal experiences don't count unless you worked for both Google and Apple, and as we've discussed before you're not the only one who has worked in the US or in SV.

 

[[)roi(]]

Most Google engineers are expected to work as scientists (as researchers, applying the scientific method), at least some of the time.

Um, and that article is about the title "Distinguished Scientist", which is something far more elite.

Uuugh... For example: do you write code every day or do you research new ways to advance the science of computing?

But keep in mind the title scientist (whether distinguished or not) is one that is earned through through your achievements in the field and not because of the code you write, more specifically it is not a title we self assign (or did you miss the ACM part, or the Turing part); Naturally we all like to think our skills are good, but hey whoever said good artisans don't make great things, of course they do.

 

[cguy]

Surely it not justs down to an "Android" site and Quora, personal experiences don't count unless you worked for both Google and Apple, and as we've discussed before you're not the only one who has worked in the US or in SV.

If I worked for both of them it would be truly anecdotal. An analysis based on hundreds of exit interviews, where we had detailed knowledge of the skill level of the employee, is probably as good an amount of evidence as anyone is going to get. Also, I mentioned a lot more than just anecdotal experience - there are market forces at work that support and create this effect.

 

[[)roi(]]

If I worked for both of them it would be truly anecdotal. An analysis based on hundreds of exit interviews, where we had detailed knowledge of the skill level of the employee, is probably as good an amount of evidence as anyone is going to get. Also, I mentioned a lot more than just anecdotal experience - there are market forces at work that support and create this effect.

Trying to find credibility in a 100 employees is about credible as those who predicted the "eventual" Android 100% market share, the fullscreen Apple TV, Apple's neverending yearly demise, etc.

Lol... You'll have more accuracy if you visited a fortune teller.

 

[cguy]

Uuugh... For example: do you write code every day or do you research new ways to advance the science of computing?

But keep in mind the title scientist (whether distinguished or not) is one that is earned through through your achievements in the field and not because of the code you write, more specifically it is not a title we self assign (or did you miss the ACM part, or the Turing part); Naturally we all like to think our skills are good, but hey whoever said good artisans don't make great things, of course they do.

On average, I write code, and I research new ways to advance the science of computing every day.

Where do you get this: "title scientist is earned" crap from? You're a scientist because you work as a scientist doing research, and following the scientific method. Some scientists are famous, renowned, or have the company titles, "senior" or "distinguished", but many are just "scientists". When you start at MSR, and many other industrial or governmental research departments you get the work title Research Scientist straight out of university. If you're a programmer working on the cutting edge on a daily basis, progressing development by research, you're a scientist. You seem to have a "capital S" hangup, get over it.

 

[cguy]

Trying to find credibility in a 100 employees is about credible as those who predicted the "eventual" Android 100% market share, the fullscreen Apple TV, Apple's neverending yearly demise, etc.

Lol... You'll have more accuracy if you visited a fortune teller.

You don't even have the parameters to quantify the accuracy.

 

[biometrics]

tl;dr

 

[[)roi(]]

On average, I write code, and I research new ways to advance the science of computing every day.

Where do you get this: "title scientist is earned" crap from? You're a scientist because you work as a scientist doing research, and following the scientific method. Some scientists are famous, renowned, or have the company titles, "senior" or "distinguished", but many are just "scientists". When you start at MSR, and many other industrial or governmental research departments you get the work title Research Scientist straight out of university. If you're a programmer working on the cutting edge on a daily basis, progressing development by research, you're a scientist. You seem to have a "capital S" hangup, get over it.

Common! really...! I'm tired of having to point you to the obvious. You can call any old idiot a scientist and anyone a doctor, but in reality we have accreditation and formal acknowledgement processes to single out the truth.

On the writing code part, so like Knuth implied you are an artisan when you code (the use of the skill), and a scientist when conducting research, as to whether you met that criteria is a different matter entirely.

Hopefully we can agree on something, for example: most programmers fall into the category of skill computing artisans. I.e. They're not involved in day to day computing research, and program design or architecting is not the considered research, re its what any artisan would do..

 

[cguy]

Common! really...! I'm tired of having to point you to the obvious. You can call any old idiot a scientist and anyone a doctor, but in reality we have accreditation and formal acknowledgement processes to single out the truth.

Um, no... There is a formal accreditation/acknowledgement to get the title "doctor", but there is no formal accreditation for the term "scientist".

 

[[)roi(]]

You don't even have the parameters to quantify the accuracy.

Actually I do: from Apple's 2015 financial results, they have 115,000 employees; let's assume 60% (probably too high) are related to their marketing activities, that leaves 46,000. 100 exit interviews represents 0,002% -- it's a rubbish statistic however you try to represent it.

 

[[)roi(]]

Um, no... There is a formal accreditation/acknowledgement to get the title "doctor", but there is no formal accreditation for the term "scientist".

...and again you're wrong, this is just one of them http://www.acm.org