https://css-tricks.com/tales-of-a-non-unicorn-a-story-about-...
https://css-tricks.com/tales-of-a-non-unicorn-a-story-about-...
Asking for a list of tasks that will come up or code examples is particularly naive. Technical jobs aren't a laundry list of exact needs.
Being an engineer in any field requires versatility, including the ability to solve problems on your feet and to learn new technology, or to learn tech you already know to a greater depth, at the drop of a hat.
This is one of the few times I've ever read a story about impostor syndrome where the story teller actually was an impostor. Bizarre.
Also fizz buzz has nothing to do with the kind of programming that was expected from the job description. Now you might reasonably object that fizz buzz is supposed to be something so rudimentary that any programmer could implement. But the point is UI/UX people don't typically do any algorithms work at all. Their interaction with JS is often just to call an API and shove the resulting data where it needs to be in the DOM. They may never have to use a loop, ever. Or conditional testing. Or think about infinite sequences. To a proper software engineer like you or me fizz buzz seems ridiculously simple. But I could totally see a UX designer whose only interaction with self-taught JS is to glue APIs together being tripped up.
I've asked the people I work with that have this combination of skills but, unfortunately, they all popped out of existence the moment the question left my mouth.
Perhaps they were impostors too?
"Write FizzBuzz" - "OMG, MATH!"
Impostor meets Dunning-Kruger.
It is barely in the same family tree as FAANG coding tests.
“ HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript. I’m a master at the first two, but since there was no mention of programming stuff and the responsibilities section was so design-centric, I figured my jQuery proficiency and capacity to self-teach would suffice.”
The entire job description read like a UI/UX designer with a minimal understanding of JavaScript.
Her point is that if they wanted a software engineer then they should have hired one. She isn’t trying to be one.
There's no version of a person who meets this requirement that cannot fizzbuzz. They put engineer in the title of the position.
"UX Engineer" is a completely reasonable title for someone who uses Javascript, HTML, and CSS to build web frontends. That person is absolutely a programmer, and absolutely must be able to fizzbuzz (and much, much more).
In HR parlance, if the person meets the BQs then they are considered qualified. If someone comes along and you have two equals but the one of the two had the preferred then they are the preferred candidate. Preferred candidate would be expected to know fizzbuzz.
The part you pasted was in the preferred qualifications.
Also engineer term is overloaded here which is also her point
This is not a point of contention. It is the entire point of fizzbuzz. Fizzbuzz was designed to stop wasting interviewer time by filtering out people who could never in any way be construed to be qualified for a position that involved writing code.
And fizzbuzz is not a math problem. I’m sure the interviewer would’ve even given her a hint if she came as far as writing a loop and writing the different branches but not figuring out how to differentiate the cases. I’d shrug that off as nervousness perhaps.
I wish I could meet these people who can't code a fizz buzz.