Hacker News Reader

Comment by shepardrtc | Hacker News Reader

> they generally do require programming knowledge

Yes

> probably an algorithm here and there

Even Amazon doesn't ask about algorithms for DevOps. When I interviewed with them for a DevOps position, they asked me to write a Python script to parse logs files. They also asked about various linux commands that you would use to work with those same logs. Pretty relevant. But the interviewer never once asked about algorithms or anything like that.

My current company gave me a take-home test to build out a solution that deploys a code package. Best interview question/task I've ever had. It was hard, but I got to show off my real skills.

Companies that ask leet coding questions for DevOps probably have no idea what they're looking for and probably don't know what they're doing.

View on HN

Hm. I spoke with Amazon (AWS) recently (haven't interviewed yet), and they made the express point that if I were to accept an interview that I should brush up on my algos and HackerRank questions because they loved HackerRank and would surely use a series of those-style problems throughout the interview process.

My last in-depth interview was a take-home/collaborative project (paid) for a smaller company here in Canada. It was a great experience. So good on you.

It's probably per-team, someone on here mentioned that's how Google works at least.

Someone I know did an AWS interview round during business school, and they do this thing called "bar raising" (IIRC) that involves one of the interviewers literally doing something unpleasant to see how you react (e.g. picking their teeth in the camera, cutting you off when you speak). Very odd.

That is not what bar raising is intended to be. There's always a bar raiser in an Amazon interview loop who is not affiliated with the hiring team. They ask the same kinds of questions as the rest of the interviewers in the same way, but they're not influenced by how much the team needs to make the hire, which in theory prevents the team from lowering the bar just to get a warm body in.

I'm not saying your friend didn't get a bad interviewer. It's just an interesting demonstration of how risky it is to generalize from anecdotes.

It was a generally accepted practice based on talking to the folks who interviewed with Amazon during my wife's time at Kellogg that one interview would be conducted by someone (an interviewer who had done 100+ interviews) who would be unpleasant in some way.

I'm guessing the way Amazon interview for business roles is somehow different than how they interview for specific team positions. As I understand it, MBA hires aren't filling specific gaps on teams, since the hiring process is so long and involves an internship. There wouldn't be a "team" to lower the bar for, in other words.

I have worked at Amazon, and can categorically say that this description of their interview process is false.

Like false as in I made it up or false as in it's not your experience?

False as in not true. Amazon does not have a policy of interviewers intentionally making candidates uncomfortable.

Ah, well then what was I being told? I got these independent reports form literally every single person I spoke to who interviewed with Amazon.

I also just spoke with my wife and she re-confirmed it. So I guess I'm wondering what these people who I respect are experiencing...

That is not what "bar-raising" round is. It's a difficult question (often algorithmic) that 50% of the employees wouldn't be able to solve. Its designed to raise the bar of employees.

Why would Amazon ask an algorithmic question for a non-engineering role?

I think you are talking about something different. The parent poster was referring to a Devops position. Were you looking at a software engineer position?

I wasn't really actively looking for anything—they contacted me about a range of positions that centred around special projects that ranged in subject matter/disciplines.

>Companies that ask leet coding questions for DevOps probably have no idea what they're looking for and probably don't know what they're doing.

I think it's a more a case of cargo culting rather than not necessarily knowing what they are doing, although that might also be the case in some instances.

Cargo-culting is literally not knowing what you're doing.

What i meant is that they are cargo culting in their interviewing method but this does not necessarily mean that they don't know what they are doing day to day.

Cargo culting is knowing exactly what you are doing, but having a completely incorrect understanding of the potential result.

If you’re cargo culting do you really know what you’re doing though? I’d think the two situations are mutually exclusive. Or were cargo cults actually effective at getting supplies dropped from the sky?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com