Math Learn Direct Easy Mathlearndirect Math Math Learn Direct Szh Administrator Components Com Ongumatimesheet20 Lib Onguma Class Php Math Learn Direct Why we don'tg hire programmers based on puzzles, API quizzes, math riddles, or other parlor tricks - (37signals)

Some things looking at real code and ‘bigger picture issues’ doesn’t tell you a well-designed situation can:

-Truth to power. -Handling not being able to do something, or do it easily, or do it well. -First principles. What can you toss out the window? -An ability to check an ego

Some people are very comfortable being the smartest guy in the room, or the guy who was in Wired a while back, or the most senior guy in the room if that fails. These people are usually called teenagers, and most of them learn one way or another that there are other really smart people around and just dismissing ideas by swearing or by sarcastic comments or swear words does not necessarily invalidate their opinions.

But not all of them do. Lots of places (including and often especially universities) lose/let go of really smart and otherwise valuable people within a few years because they can’t handle or deal with the size of other fish as they’re bowl is expanded. A test to screen them out (as the one you mention apparently did) is well warranted in many contexts.

I am not sure how many get to the in-person interview, but I’ll share a few of my experiences from my 37signals interview.

I know this post is about hiring programmers, but a large chunk of my time interviewing for support at 37s was in a room sitting in front of a macbook taking some sort of personal assessment/profile/skills test. Pen and paper were needed, as I was handed a Tufte pad to work out the puzzling parts. Afterward I asked 2 people about the test and they had never taken it. Mr. Fried included.

I love 37s, been a customer for years, and worked my ass off to get to that interview. The team was great, the office spectacular, and the job would be a pleasure, but I left Chicago wondering why I flew in to take an online test. A test that I received neither the results nor feedback.

I really mean no harsh criticisms, just honestly identifying the disconnect I had between wanting to engage in the process of the job with people versus sitting for a test. Don’t get me wrong, I did get to talk with the team. But the testing time seemed like a lost opportunity.

I am sure 37s has determined good reasons to give these assessments, and I must have flamed out at some point. They hired someone else. But from the support side (and again I know it is referencing programming) DHH ’s post does not represent my interview experience with the company.

Sure, I wish I had another shot. That day at 37s I saw a lot that I could learn and a lot I could speak into and push ahead. Unfortunately they missed out on a great supporter and contributor. Perhaps a puzzle sent me packing. Life goes on.

I am grateful for the chance I had, but I just wish the support process looked more like DHH is advocating here for programming. Maybe apples and oranges. Maybe not.

Hope this can help the discussion.

And… if anyone is looking for a recovering educator that loves helping people and didn’t make the 37s cut, look me up.

I agree with this article. Unfortunately, I fell into the trap of partnering with a dude who shits gold software and polished code, yet has absolutely no personality, is anti-communication and thinks he’s god’s gift to business because he’s a good programmer.

Anyone ever met this type of guy? Don’t ever dare ask the king for help, because it’s not worth his time to help a mere pawn out.

When I needed to hire a LOT of people in a short time at a mid-sized company, and was lacking time to interview during regular hours, I simply took the candidate out to lunch. I found the relaxed atmosphere a great way to get to know candidates as human beings, and get “under the covers” a bit more. What they did in their lives, and what motivates them to be alive, became just as important as the career points relative to the job requirements. I never regretted a single hire I made this way.

Fast-forward a few years later and I get the chance to be interviewed at a “social networking site” that no-one uses anymore. I came to the interview holding some choice printed documents and online examples of my work and boasting two recent patents. But that was all cast aside and I was asked to write a basic get/set statement on a white board. I thought they were kidding but it was all for real. The interviewer then stuck his feet up on the table and handed me the pen, leaning back on his chair almost enjoying the awkwardness of the moment. I was subsequently interviewed by 3 more people over a span of four hours, They were barely interested in asking about my work, some of the really cool stuff I had done and showcased, personally, at CES . It was just one white board puzzle after another. I was dumbfounded, and for the first interview ever a little perturbed. I went on to other bigger and better things, and I put it behind me although I have to wonder if this kind of culture was at the root of their failing, once proud dot com social site.

@Jon It must have been a long time since you interviewed at . I’ve talked to several people who have. They all went through a couple of levels of phone interview with sample questions like the probability of finding the blue ball or randomly sorting a deck of cards in one pass. In other words, puzzle questions. Granted, a company that gets a few hundred thousand applications a year needs a way to thin out the herd, but it seems clear only the puzzle solvers actually get an in-person interview where they might be asked to demonstrate they can write a simple program. The rap about ’s hiring practices: they like young puzzle solvers with graduate degrees. Fine, then that’s what you get. But perhaps it explains another widespread observation, that doesn’t “get” user interface.

Back in the day Microsoft would use puzzles in their interviewing process. The idea may have started with them, or perhaps somewhere else.

In talking with people who have done hiring there, it sounded as if the reasoning behind the puzzle questions was that they were giving an IQ test—but without the implications of actually giving an IQ test to candidates. IIRC there may be some legal problems with requiring an actual IQ test.

In any case, it turns out that Microsoft found out that high IQs didn’t necessarily imply ‘better’ engineers – so they stopped relying on them, probably around 10 years ago now.

YMMV , that’s just what I picked up from talking with people who retired from there.

If doing whiteboard puzzles is such a time-saving technique that magically detects the best candidates for employment, why not save time in other areas of endeavor. Why not have pilots answer a single question before allowing them to fly our families around the country? Let’s save time and have SAT tests with a single question. Heck, there are lots of puzzles on the LSAT , maybe they should save everyone a bunch of time and have one question LSAT exams?

The reason Stupid Human Tricks on a whiteboard don’t work is that a single question is not statistically relevant. If you want to test someone’s ability you would need a standardized test with enough questions and participants to be statistically relevant.

In 26 years as a full-time programmer, I have never had occasion to write code in front of a group. Why test someone on a skill that they will never use? Does it follow that because a person can’t pee in front of a group that they are lousy at peeing?