
So I refused a white board technical test and was asked to leave - kiyanwang
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/so-i-refused-a-white-board-technical-test-and-was-asked-to-leave.1717025/
======
stevetrewick
And you were expecting what, exactly?

I've had similar using live coding tests, barely minutes in and the candidate
is clearly not coding what was specified. Asked why, they offer criticism of
the interview process and an explanation of why their thing (usually a game or
some graphical doohickey) is better.

This is an instant fail. These tests are as much about interaction and
personality as they are technical skill. Which is why your GitHub profile is
not relevant until afterwards.

You can have a profile full of great looking code, but if you're truculent,
uncooperative and insist on being the smartest asshole in the room, you will
not be finding work with my team today.

Soft skills, people.

~~~
AndreyErmakov
Apparently, he was expecting a constructive dialogue which was never planned
to take place.

When a professional comes in, he expects to be treated like one. Most people
learned to solve basic coding problems when they were at the university like
15 or 20 years ago. Today, 20 years later you should be discussing other
things. Otherwise, you're basically starting a dialogue implying the guy
slacked off for 20 years inviting him to prove otherwise. It's just no way for
two grown-up professionals to approach things.

On a side note, try this: make a appointment with a highly reputable dentist
(like weeks or months in advance) then go and try asking him some basic
questions implying he might not know his stuff. You'll be shown the door in
about two minutes, and possibly you'll get a lifetime ban in that
establishment.

Why should software developers accept to be treated differently? And yes,
there are lots of incompetent dentists and doctors of all kinds. Why do they
have more respect for themselves than software specialists?

~~~
jpttsn
> When a professional comes in, he expects to be treated like one

How do I know if the person I'm talking to is one of your "professionals,"
without asking these questions? I need to weed out the pretend professionals.

~~~
white-flame
You address them as professionals, and if they're lost as to what you're
talking about, they're not professionals.

People can't talk the talk about specifics of industry experience if they
haven't walked the walk, and that will become obvious in normal discourse
around the matters of job role itself and their related experiences. You can
be inquisitive, but starting off with CS101 quizzes is just condescending and
wildly irrelevant to the actual position.

~~~
jpttsn
I don't think so. Hiring is vulnerable to "behavioral" factors: cognitive
biases etc. I'm very fearful of being overconfident, trusting hunches etc. I
need hard data.

When I'm being interviewed, I respect the interviewer for demanding hard data,
instead of just checking who talks the talk.

------
AndreyErmakov
It was the right thing to do, but it was done with the bad timing.

This personal preference should have been communicated right after the first
contact and before going on the first date, polite and firmly. That way
nobody's time would have been wasted.

It's something I would do these days, given the current industry obsession
with these weird rituals. A simple pragmatic and a [constructive] dialog about
the needs of the company, my skills and whether there is a potential mutual
interest - yes, white board coding, puzzle questions, technical interviews and
take home tests - no. Whoever is not okay with this arrangement may move
along.

All good jobs that I had were offered without technical tests and they came
with nice and smart people. Every time there was some technical grilling
involved, the people were arrogant and condescending, and I wouldn't have
wanted to work with them anyway.

And anyway, this form of hiring protocol mostly seems to be practiced in the
US job market, as well as by those countries trying to closely mimic their US
counterparts. I've noticed that phenomenon in Eastern Europeans too. The
Western European companies have massively different hiring practices.

For one thing the author is right. These broken hiring techniques force people
to leave the mundane job market as quickly as possible, switching to looking
for work through other channels. Perhaps this situation contributes to the
visible lack of talent that some are observing. Apparently, the talent prefers
a more personal and a more civilized approach that the generic job market is
not offering.

~~~
tluyben2
The West EU market is indeed very different; reading hiring practice in the US
on HN it mostly seems like abuse. Probably it is not _that_ bad in reality but
I am glad I never had and will never have to do these kind of things. Nor will
I put people I hire through this. I guess it is the mentality here; might have
said the opposite if I was from the US.

~~~
sportanova
What's it like in the west EU?

~~~
AndreyErmakov
Basically, the interview is all about getting to know a person. You discuss
your experiences, your interests, your values. You get to know the people
interviewing you, they get an image of you. The company tells you about what
they do, then asks you to tell something about yourself. Then you move on to
discuss the position, their needs and their objectives and eventually you both
develop an idea if there is a good match (for the both sides). Through this
not only do they learn about your professional level, but they also form an
image of your soft skills and your presentation abilities.

Essentially, it's very important for them to find a nice colleague that will
naturally integrate in the collective. Someone who can do the work, but also
talk, communicate well and overall be a well-rounded person. The technical
side of things is an additional criteria, but not the basis for a decision.
You often get to hear the idea that "learning on the job" is the way they do
things. Nobody has an idea to dismiss you because you don't remember some
obscure sorting algorithm from 20 years ago.

At least I have not run in a single case when the interview was being run by
people or the Western European origin and I got to be grilled on technical
matters. The story was all different when among the Western Europeans there
were the Eastern ones present at the table who were mainly asking questions.
In that case all that you get asked is the minutiae of the specific
technologies they use, and often the interview time is completely wasted as
you don't get the chance to learn about the company, so you return home with
as little information about them as you had before going to the interview.

After a while you get a clear picture of where everyone fits in the food
chain. Western Europeans run a business, see the big picture and care about
practical things. Eastern Europeans are grunt workers that are [happily] stuck
in their technical silos.

Not meaning to offend anyone originating from Easter European countries and
who do not fall under this description, but it's been my consistent experience
and my individual observation that I've made while interviewing for positions
in Western Europe (mostly in Germany) and also from interacting with my
colleagues (of varying origins). There was always a clear separation of
concerns to be felt.

~~~
AndreyErmakov
Just to clarify. There are many smart and intelligent people among the Eastern
Europeans who've moved beyond that level. It's just I've never encountered
that type at the interviewing table. Those that I've seen were mostly
interested in scratching their ego, proving their smartness to their bosses
and putting down the candidate in public. Naturally, they were making a
terrible impression of the company and I wouldn't have accepted to work there
anyway (unless after a letter from the CEO stating they have all been removed
from the company).

------
bluejekyll
I've been interviewing and interviewed for years. If you want to test someones
coding ability, give them a computer, give them a problem and ask them to
solve it in their favorite language.

The time during an in-person interview should not, I repeat, should not be
wasted on solving a single problem on a whiteboard. Having someone whiteboard
a design or system, etc., sure. But having them do code on a whiteboard is
idiotic since no-one actually works like that (well not since Lisp was
invented).

When I interview people, I ask them about their experience, and how they
solved difficult situations they faced. I find out a lot more this way about
their abilities to lead projects; if you do it effectively you can quickly
determine where people are exaggerating their team leadership skills, or the
amount of design they were personally responsible for on a project. Read about
behavioral interviews for good material on how to properly interview in this
style.

Going through this process also lets you know if you actually want to work
with the person. Which, IMO is more important than hiring the greatest
programmer in the world, if that person is also a narcissistic, egotistical
maniac (and yes, all us programmers fit that description, but you know what
I'm getting at).

After all that, you have their test, their github account, references (OMG,
you can call people they know or ask on LinkedIn, what?). That should be
sufficient in telling you about their coding ability, and far greater than a
45-60 minute white boarding session in which all you found out is if they can
properly do quick-sort (where do I pivot again?).

I agree that this guy probably could have handled this particular situation
better, but I also think it's a stupid waste of time on the interviewers part
to ask questions that don't get at the heart of someones experience.

~~~
tomp
References? Isn't it pretty taboo to give out _bad_ references? How can you
then trust the good references?

~~~
AndreyErmakov
In Germany (and possibly in certain other countries) there is a special
language people use in written references to issue a positive reference
(others aren't permitted) yet include certain information "between the lines".
There are books on how to write these things and how to detect them.

~~~
bluejekyll
Same in the US. Basically you can either give someone a glowing review, or you
can say, "yes, <person> worked here for <X amount of time>".

What you can't do is anything that hinders a person from getting a job, but it
doesn't mean you need to lie and say they were great.

~~~
AndreyErmakov
Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

------
lispm
Commercial Software development is for a large part about communication with
fellow humans, not just about typing into a terminal. A whiteboard is just
another communication tool, quite often used by development teams.

~~~
nan0
Agreed , but development teams already have a understanding of each and every
team member's skill set. You pretty much go into whiteboard interviews without
knowing the people all that well.

~~~
prof_hobart
If you're in a small company, possibly. In a large organisation, I fairly
regularly find myself having to explain technical stuff to people I've never
met before. Some are non-technical, some are very technical. Some are external
suppliers, or people working in one of our many overseas divisions.

Admittedly, my job may not be typical of what the average dev has to do. But
if that's the kind of role that this company was looking for, then asking
someone to talk through something on a whiteboard doesn't seem too
unreasonable.

I don't know the company, but I'm guessing that they aren't going to be that
bothered that you can't remember the exact syntax of a particular function
without checking it on Google. What I assume they're looking for is someone
who can clearly communicate their thought process.

~~~
nan0
Sorry, meant to clarify that with only small focused teams that could be
working a specific feature etc. Yes if the job was for a more responsible role
like the one you describe, I would hope they would give the applicant a while
board and more to show his/her skills.

I can disagree that for a just a technical interview that a while board isn't
the best tool to bring out people's collaboration skills.

I don't know what the whiteboard should be replaced with, though.

------
skewart
The whole interviewer-interviewee dynamic is so messed up in technical hiring
these days.

Recently I've been thinking about asking the candidate to ask me to whiteboard
something. I actually think that might produce a more interesting conversation
and a more meaningful assessment of fit from both sides.

~~~
dooptroop
Throw in a couple of gotchas and no-nos and see how the subject responds!

------
NamTaf
They have a quantity of engineers they're trying to evaluate quickly. If you
refuse why would they bother wasting their time? Chances are that you're not
_the_ stand-out candidate of the group so why not just pass over you and find
one that fits within the checklist of tasks your boss told you to do to
evaluate a new hire?

There's a time and place to take your stand. You need to work that out or
you'll shoot yourself in the foot.

------
Tomte
White board tests are pretty useless, but the applicant's behaviour was
unprofessional, to say the least.

I would have ended the interview right there, as well.

~~~
smt88
It's unprofessional to make an adult with potentially years of experience do a
nonsensical, high-pressure test in front of an interviewer like a monkey.
Whiteboard interviews are humiliating even if you pass.

Any company that does whiteboard interviews for coders should also have
incoming salespeople sell hotdogs in front of the building as a test. Incoming
managers can use Barbie dolls to demonstrate how to run a team. Fair is fair.

~~~
taneq
This is like getting your knickers in a twist over being asked to make a
coffee when interviewing to be a barista. "But I have years of experience, why
should I just make you a coffee right now in front of you like a trained
monkey?"

The reason that people do fizz-buzz style tests in interviews isn't to insult
you with easy questions. It's because far too many "professionals with years
of experience" are incapable of solving the simplest problems. These people
will cost your company hundreds of thousands of dollars in combined expenses
and opportunity cost, if you let them.

It's possible to implement it poorly, sure, but the principle is sound.

~~~
adamors
A barista would be making coffees as part of their job. Not sure how many
programmers code on whiteboards in stressful situations on a daily basis.

~~~
taneq
Maybe not often white boards specifically (although I've done that too) but
does no-one else do pair programming? Code reviews? Emergency group debug
sessions to fix a blocking bug? There are many situations which absolutely do
require you to be able to perform on the spot and under pressure.

~~~
adamors
I have done all of those, but by that time I was aquatinted with the people I
work with. During an interview you're stressed by strangers and the interview
itself.

For instance, I interviewed people who froze up simply by being on an
interview, putting them in front of a whiteboard would have been torture.

------
summarite
Modern interviewing is about whether a candidate brings the right skills and
whether s/he'd fit in. It's not about finding the best robot, it's about
finding a colleague your both be able to work and have fun with. The author
may or may not have had the technical skills but being a rebel in the
interview process does never bode well for your ability to fit into the work
environment.

~~~
adamors
You can actually, you know, talk to the candidate and find out if they fit.
Wanting them to perform in front of a whiteboard is completely different.

------
luso_brazilian
A second tale from the same forum submitter:

 _> Had another interview on Skype with another company. Was grilled verbally
without actual coding test._

 _> No way those verbal answers can be delivered unless you have experience,
so I basically aced the verbal technical test on Skype. But I don't think I'll
get the job anyway because the interviewers all seem like young punks who may
not think I would fit their hip/young group._

There is a reason Rosa Parks and not Claudette Colvin [1] was used as the
front figure of the bus segregation lawsuit.

Although there is an argument about the merits of whiteboard testing his
(apparent) behavior and overall attitude could have contributed as much as his
refusal to take the test.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin)

~~~
lj3
tsk tsk tsk, somebody didn't read the whole thread. I highlighted the juicy
bits.

    
    
      I was told the hiring manager was very keen to make me an offer but I have to travel about 4 to 5 hours to their office for onsite final interview.
    
      Yes, it's the team of young punks who interviewed me.
    
      This was a recruiter involved exercise where I was contacted. Did not apply for this position.
    

And now the whole post:

    
    
      Just an update. There's another Skype interview I had that was successful and I was asked to attend a final interview. I was told the hiring manager was very keen to make me an offer but I have to travel about 4 to 5 hours to their office for onsite final interview. I suppose this could involve white board testing or whatever. They want the interview/meeting this week/thursday, a bit of a rush. I am not so keen on travelling this week, and I expected them not to offer me anything at all in the first place. Yes, it's the team of young punks who interviewed me. I am way too jaded to make a 4 to 5 hours trip just to attend a final whiteboard test. But even then I have to make a move if I do accept this offer. This was a recruiter involved exercise where I was contacted. Did not apply for this position. I asked to confirm the interview agenda, and all the recruiter said was to discuss the offer. The last thing I want is to be bamboozled and surprised by a whiteboard test and wasted my trip there. Even then I am already not too keen on this job due to the need to make a big move.

------
haseebrabbani
I applaud you! Whiteboarding (sounds like waterboarding) is an archaic
practice and should be discontinued. A new hiring and vetting method needs to
be invented. I also don't agree with these "coding puzzle" websites where you
do silly questions to show your skills and "score respect". All technical
interviews today are very confrontational by nature. Both parties start off on
the wrong foot. There needs to be some sort of hybrid. I like to make the
analogy to driver's licenses. There should be something like developer
licenses that the industry defines and agrees upon. If you have a developer
license for Android, for example, then companies should know that they can
hire you for an Android project. Its silly for someone like me to go to every
single company that wants to talk and jump through the same hoops every time
to demonstrate competency. The conversation that we have in 30-40 minutes is
given more weight than my entire track record over several years, which is
just absurd. Each company also has to divert their energy from their core work
to develop their own hiring practices. The same problem is being solved over
and over by each company which is just a total waste of time. It is not fun
for either side.

------
piquadrat
Site got hugged to death. Google cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c1QjJhx...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c1QjJhx3DVYJ:www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php%3Fthreads/so-
i-refused-a-white-board-technical-test-and-was-asked-to-leave.1717025/)

------
wazari972
I think I wouldn't mind doing some whiteboard pseudo-coding, to brainstorm on
an algorithm for instance. To design an algorithm or sketch an architecture, I
don't need Internet access.

Of course I wouldn't accept any critic on syntactic mistakes or even coding
style, but I could explain out loud how I construct the initial steps of a
program.

I would also let explicit comments like "//google a solution for that" or
"//find a library that does this"

~~~
palerdot
Bang on. This is totally great just if the companies doing the white boarding
interviews accept this kind of interactions. Most of them don't, and that is
what white board interview enthusiasts are missing to consider.

------
duiker101
I see a lot of different opinions in this comments and I believe that there is
truth in both sides of the situation. Whiteboard is pretty much useless to
determinate the technical skills of the person but it can be useful as to
understanding how a person uses their communication/critical thinking skills .
I do not think that the problem is the whiteboard per se but rather the use
that the employers makes of situation. If the interviewer is aware of what
using a whiteboard is good/bad for than the outcome can be good even if the
whiteboard problem is not fully solved. The issue with the ordeal arises when
people take the whiteboard approach at face value. "This is a problem, solve
it." and take the end result as a direct example of the applicant's skills. I
think that a good interviewer should be able to communicate what is expected
out of a whiteboard test and make the candidate at ease. Obviously interviews
with this approach are seemingly rather rare because people that conduct the
interview often don't have the skills or the experience to conduct thought out
interviews and take problems without maybe thinking of how they should
evaluate the result of a test.

------
supermatt
> I was also asked to do some weird personality test that is over 3 pages and
> I have no clue the format/questions being asked. I declined those as well.

Uncooperative and argumentative. I'd _really_ want someone like this on my
team...

~~~
collyw
Gets to the root of a problem quickly and points out the flaws.

------
Raed667
I refused a whiteboard hazing a few months ago. It was more of a logistics
matter where they scheduled me really late (around 7PM) and told me it was
just an "introduction" interview.

It was not a good match and I don't regret it at all.

Edit: This was for an internship and they either were not honest in their
phone call or there was some "implicit" things that I didn't get.

------
personjerry
This seems like 1) a communication problem and 2) an attitude problem, from
the OP, more than anything else.

It seems like the OP is insistent on his own way of being evaluated, but
hasn't informed these interviewers or recruiters ahead of time, or even try to
discuss it (hence a communication problem):

> I just packed up and left. Didn't even bother to further explain why I
> refuse the whiteboard interview or tell them why their process is flawed.

Additionally, the OP seems to have an egotistic and judgmental temperament
(hence an attitude problem):

> No way those verbal answers can be delivered unless you have experience, so
> I basically aced the verbal technical test on Skype.

> ... the interviewers all seem like young punks who may not think I would fit
> their hip/young group.

Given the above, I think it's unfair to use this particular anecdote fuel
against the tech recruitment system (although I agree it is flawed), because
those companies might have complied with OP's desires had he communicated them
or handled the situation with a better attitude.

------
russelluresti
Okay, so a whiteboard interview is definitely flawed, and we all know it.

However, I would like to point out 2 things:

1\. You should have known it was going to be a whiteboard WELL in advance of
the actual interview. You could have asked the recruiter how you'd be
evaluated. In the actual interview is NOT the place to refuse a whiteboard.
You should have talked to the recruiter and told him/her that you wouldn't do
a whiteboard evaluation. Instead you chose to waste everyone's time. So,
you're kind of a dick for that.

2\. "because the interviewers all seem like young punks" \- yeah maybe the
issue is your attitude. Just sayin. Again, you sound like you're kind of a
dick.

------
neuronexmachina
Pro-tip: If a candidate throws a tantrum during an interview when asked to
whiteboard a problem, don't hire them.

~~~
ruirr
Double pro-tip, if asked stupid questions, or better yet, they yell at you and
trow anything at you, do not walk, run away.

------
misingnoglic
I really really don't understand why people get so offended regarding
whiteboard coding interviews. I understand not liking them, and even
disagreeing with them, but walking out of a job interview because they ask you
to solve a little puzzle doesn't make sense to me.

When you apply for a retail job, they'll ask you a question such as "how would
you handle X situation," and you're expected to come up with a plan on the
spot. In reality, you'll probably have a manager who will tell you what to do,
or you'll at least have a team to discuss it with, but asking questions like
this tells you something about a candidate.

The same thing with writing whiteboard code- it tells you something about the
candidate. At the bottom line, it tells you whether the candidate can reason
and think about code. It also demonstrates how the candidate can communicate
their thoughts and questions with others on their team. Honestly I'd rather
these skills be tested while I'm writing code, rather them asking some
questions like "tell us about a bug you encountered and how you fixed it." I
guess it also shows if the candidate has an ego too big to be willing to be
interviewed for an hour.

------
jonathankoren
I don't get the whiteboard hate. The whiteboard is no different from typing,
except it's slower. The trend towards live coding is just kind of gimmicky.
You have spend your time talking about the approach and the algorithm before
you start writing anyway. If you're judging a whiteboard interview on
syntax[0] then you're doing them wrong. It's all about the back and forth. The
code is almost an afterthought.

Every live coding interview inevitably comes to a crashing halt when the
interviewer wants you to actually run the code, because then it's 10 minutes
of chasing syntax errors. (Oh missed a semicolon. Didn't close a string. Oh
it's not add()? Must be put(). Oh that wasn't imported. Oh that was
misspelled. blah. blah. blah.) Followed by another 10 minutes of sticking in
print statements to debug the damn thing because you can't write a unit test,
or have a debugger.

It's an equally bullshit setup. No one writes production code on a whiteboard,
and no one writes production code with some dude staring over your shoulder
commenting every other line about a comma or an indent style or some other
trivial thing. Even pair programming isn't supposed to be that, and that's
assuming you believe pair programming is useful, which is debatable.[1]

[0] I one time had an interview where the guy actually said, "Isn't it .size()
and not .length()?" My response was, "Whatever." [1] I actually don't have an
opinion assuming "the navigator" is actually thinking strategically instead of
saying bullshit like, "'instead' is spelled with an e-a not an a-e." Well, no
shit. That's why it got flagged in the editor.

~~~
miketwo345
There are 3 main problems with the whiteboard tech interview. 1\. It's not
actually correlated to job performance. Google (and others) have done tons of
studies on this, and the summary was basically, "Yeah, it's complete bs." 2\.
It is meant to show how a candidate would solve a problem, but it forces the
candidate to follow a particular problem-solving path. Who in their right
mind, when being first introduced to a new problem, cuts off all access to
Google and other resources and tries to derive a solution from first
principles?! Recent grads maybe, but not anyone who's been doing this for some
time. It's not a good measure of how a candidate solves a problem if that's
not the candidate's typical way of solving a problem. It's like to trying to
see how good someone can ride a bike by handing them a unicycle. 3\. We're the
only industry that doesn't recognize success. At what point should the
technical interviews cease? 5 years in? 10? Senior Engineer? Director? CTO?
Can we really not tell if someone knows their stuff by just asking them about
what's on their resume or by giving them a take-home project to submit?

The fundamental problem is trying to evaluate coding skill in an interview
environment. The ability to regurgitate from Cracking the Coding Interview
says nothing about whether a candidate can write well-documented, well-tested,
maintainable code. It fails even more at determining whether a candidate knows
when to write their own stuff vs when to use a library. It fails to determine
how well a candidate can learn. All of those things are far more important
skills to have.

------
jimjimjim
when i've interviewed people I generally get them to answer a question on the
whiteboard.

and... i couldn't care less what they write. What I do care about is how they
go about the task. how do they approach the problem? do they plan or do they
try first and fix it up? Giving the person a whiteboard marker and them being
able to turn away from you helps overcome stage-fright.

exact memorization of an algorithm for an interview is worthless in my eyes.

------
zyngaro
To me the problem with recruitment process in this industry is that you're
experience and background are totally irrelevant and you are evaluated exactly
as a just out of college fellow: all that matters is how you perform on that
whiteboard test on that particular question in that particular day. That is
the unfair part of it. Moreover the junior may even have advantage over you:
he costs less.

~~~
collyw
The junior has an advantage that he has probably needed to write a sorting
algorithm in the last couple of years for classes. In 14 years of coding the
only times I have need to write sorting algorithms were for coding tests and
university exercises.

------
aedron
My ideal hiring process for developers would be this:

First an on-site talk at the company site, with a general discussion with the
candidate about his personality, background and technical experience, as well
as a presentation of the company and the people he would be working with. A
polite and pleasant talk, to feel each other out while still getting the
relevant information.

After the interview is complete, the candidate would be given a couple of
sheets of paper with two written tests: (1) A general IQ test. A lot of people
seems to find these controversial (ignoring for the moment any legal issues
which I believe are overblown), but I find them pretty good at gauging an
individual's logic skills. (2) A small number of programming questions
targeted to the language/platform/niche that the candidate would be working
with. Not too hard or complicated, but merely a filter to quickly assess the
candidate's experience. Questions about some common development paradigms,
best practices, knowledge of frameworks, stuff like that.

The candidate would get 10-15 minutes for each of the two tests, and can do
them any way s/he likes, in any order and with no requirements to complete all
the questions (the questions s/he chooses, and choice between
speed/thoroughness is itself an indicator about the candidate). S/he would
complete the tests in a room alone without pressure or distractions.

After this, the interview process is complete. The candidate goes home and can
be assessed from both his presence and statements, and the results from the
tests. No confrontation necessary. The candidate gets a chance to look his
best during a relaxed and affable conversation. The recruiter is able to
easily get a picture of the person's hard qualifications. Any embarrassing
slip-ups on the tests are evaluated offline after the candidate has left. Code
is, after all, usually not written on a whiteboard in front of a group of
people you have never met.

------
Overtonwindow
I think this author is letting their ego get in the way. The interviewer
doesn't have time to review their past work and make judgements on that.
Devils advocate, even: How do they know you actually wrote that code? Granted
I'm not on the programing side of things, but a white board presentation is a
great way to quickly gauge how a person solves a problem, and if they know
what they're talking about. My first programing job (in 2009) I was asked to
hand write out a bubble sort. Ok, which flavor? Java? Sure thing. I got a few
things wrong but the interviewer clearly saw I knew what I was talking about,
I wasn't afraid to tackle a problem head on without a computer, and could
think it through.

This author should really reconsider their attitude towards getting a job, and
be willing to stand up and put the effort towards getting that job.

~~~
miketwo345
And how often have you had to write bubble sorts on the job? Or tackle coding
problems without a computer?

------
segmondy
Apply the 20/80 rule to software development. It's 20% technical, 80% people.
My greatest challenge as an IT leader is not in writing code or solving
technical problems, but in getting a team that plays together well. Although,
I wouldn't be coding much as an IT leader, I would be happy to white board it
to show that I still got it!

It's really difficult to access those who can code, I have seen plenty of
people who can answer all sorts of technical questions/text book questions and
yet they can't code their way out of a paper bag. Just as bad, the ones that
can code but are not motivated nor desire to work well with others.

Stay humble!

------
keithpeter
Quote from OA (actually a forum post)

" _All I was interested at that time was to get the hell out of there, not a
place I want to work in or the kind of person I want to work with /under._"

...and, about a Skype based verbal interview with another company...

" _so I basically aced the verbal technical test on Skype. But I don 't think
I'll get the job anyway because the interviewers all seem like young punks who
may not think I would fit their hip/young group._"

I suspect that the original author has a specific idea of the kind of context
that s/he wants to work in. One hopes that s/he finds a suitable company soon.

~~~
lj3
Quotes from OA, from a later post in that same forum:

    
    
       "I was told the hiring manager was very keen to make me an offer but I have to travel about 4 to 5 hours to their office for onsite final interview."
    
      "Yes, it's the team of young punks who interviewed me."
    
      "This was a recruiter involved exercise where I was contacted. Did not apply for this position."

------
paulus_magnus2
Question to non developer profiles in SV (marketing, sales, PM, etc etc): does
your interview include the whiteboard test?

------
Grue3
Always pisses me off seeing these entitled "programmers" whining about their
technical skills being tested. What I wouldn't do to be able to show how well
I can code in person. Instead I always get filtered out after non-technical
Skype interviews.

------
brudgers
Seems like a whiteboard win-win. Company did not make an unsuitable hire.
Candidate did not take an unsuitable job.

~~~
exclusiv
The candidate doesn't know if the job was suitable or not because they wrote
the company off for not having HR standards inline with their own.

~~~
ruirr
They have thrown him the CV and the candidate does not know the company was
run by idiots? You must be joking.

~~~
exclusiv
I'm not joking because I don't know much about the company other than it
sounds like it was a large company. (Author says "avoid large companies in his
post").

If the people that interviewed him at a large company were unprofessional when
he refused THEIR process, that doesn't mean the company is necessarily bad. He
doesn't know.

I've never worked at a company, even a small one, where I thought everyone was
competent. He had an opportunity to placate them and give the company a chance
but he was so set on trying to tell them why their process was flawed and how
his was better (look at my github and code).

Part of working at a large company is being able to be tactful and wade
through the bullshit, often times dealing with incompetent people or those
that do things differently. Maybe large companies aren't for him. They aren't
for me either.

But it's not fair to say the company was run by idiots because they tossed a
resume back at him when he refused their process. He obviously lacks tact and
knows everything while being insecure at the same time (see young punks
statement in thread). We also don't know that the interviewers are running the
company as you suggest. If it's a large company, they probably aren't.

~~~
miketwo345
"Part of working at a large company is being able to be tactful and wade
through the bullshit"

^ This may be the only thing a whiteboard test is actually good for.

