Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> "Do coding interviews work in the actual world in which we live in?" No, fundamentally not.

See, that's just not right. I mean, we all agree there's a hard problem to solve here, right? The world is populated by engineers of widely varying skill levels. It just is.

So how do you detect them? Well, the ability to bang out a correct solution on a whiteboard is a verifiably correct way to do that. It may not be optimal (passing candidates with other issues that make them bad fits), and it may have undesired failure modes (rejecting people who have trouble performing in the high pressure environment). And those are problems worth discussing.

But... it works. It clearly works. We've all seen it work. Companies that use these techniques aggressively tend strongly to be organizations with a long track record of producing working software. The FAANG employers are desirable because FAANGs ship code and make money!

So I just don't get the absolutism here. If there's a clearly better way that produces a more effective workforce, where's the darwinian example? Who's winning by hiring better people than Apple or Meta? I just don't see it.

And yet correlation is not causation. And a survivor bias is probably in play here. There are so many more factors contributing to the quality of FAANG work and their performance as businesses. Hell, most of them due to their monopoly-like status could easily use any hiring technique and still rake in tons of $$$. To me the streamlined / cargo cult hiring process seems much more a symptoms of the bureaucratization of these large companies than an actual key to their success.

> And yet correlation is not causation

Well... yeah. To pedantically elaborate that, clearly the hypothesis is that the measured traits (doing well on a coding interview and doing well at coding) are co-causal, and that measuring one (which is comparatively cheap to do) is a useful proxy for measuring the other (extremely expensive!).

That's a really compelling hypothesis. The counter point requires, to my eyes, a clear working example: a company with a uniform hiring process involving some other technique which has a track record of product development as robust as all the existing leaders. And I don't see one. Calling them monopolies or cargo cults seems to be filling in for evidence, and I don't see that as persuasive.

What do you mean by "robust"? There are only a handful of monopolists in the world (by definition), so in that respect no other comparable companies exist.

But there are plenty of smaller companies who do well for themselves, relatively speaking, without cargo culting on BigCo hiring. And there are plenty of companies who cargo cult on BigCo hiring but who have not become a market leader. In fact there are graveyards full of failed startups who cargo culted BigCo hiring. So the hiring process doesn't clearly explain the financial results of the BigCos.

There are plenty of large companies with established hiring practices and standardized interview schemes out there that don't do FAANG-style coding interviews, though. And on the whole they don't do well at delivering software, and have a reputation as terrible places to do software work.

And on the other side: are there major employers who implement rigorous coding interviews who... don't have a history of producing good software? I really can't think of any.

That's my point: the evidence is really stacked in favor of the FAANG scheme. So pointing to a handful of small outfits doesn't really sway my impression; those are just expected outliers. I've worked at smaller companies with terrible hiring success, FWIW; they ended up successful because of a few lucky hires.

It's difficult to agree or disagree with this comment, because it's so vague. For example, "on the whole they don't do well at delivering software, and have a reputation as terrible places to do software work." Are we supposed to just accept this claim without question? I have no idea which companies you're talking about. And I'm not sure that Apple and Amazon for example don't have reputations as terrible places to do software work, but again I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by that.

Moreover, "good software" is also highly subjective and subject to dispute. I feel that the software coming from Apple and Google has gone downhill in the past decade. Are we to explain that by hiring?

The financial numbers are indisputable for Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook. (Not sure the term FAANG even makes sense anymore.) But something like "reputation" is another matter entirely.

> There are only a handful of monopolists in the world (by definition)

I don't think that's right. If a small town only has one gas station, and the next closest is 100 miles away, isn't that gas station owner a monopolist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com