One good way to start is to take a project that you've been heavily involved with and create a small presentation out of it. Draw up the architecture in Google Docs, keep any confidential stuff out of it, add some screen captures. Print it out and keep it in a small binder.

Practice explaining the project in under 5 minutes. Try it out on some friends that might not understand the tech completely. Rehearse questions and answers that people might ask.

When asked about previous projects, almost every single one waved their hands and tried to explain how they glued widget A to framework B and <magic> got product C.

Exactly one candidate brought materials to show things he had worked on and how the skills he used in those projects applied to the work we were doing. You could see eyes light up when he was asked "so, tell us about <project z>" and he smoothly pulled out some pages to show.

It's these types of questions that would stop me even applying for a job at Amazon or Google. I know they'd come up and I know I'd flunk them, so I don't bother.

Why would I bother?

(For the record, I've gotten an offer from Amazon before, but never from Google, and Google seems to make their interview process noticeably harder in terms of how much of your undergrad algorithms and data-structures curricula you have to remember to do the interview. Strangely, my lack of obsession with these subjects hasn't ever stopped me getting anything done in real life.)

Alternative hypothesis: these companies believe that the ability to answer undergrad exam questions about general algoriths-and-data-structures can act as a kind of intelligence quotient for programmers, giving a strong measure of general intelligence with low false-signal rates, and they are hiring for (what they believe to be) raw cleverness because they simply don't believe domain expertise or specialization to be real, exploitable phenomena. This alternative has the advantage of neatly explaining their allocation processes, too.

Yeah, that makes sense and its a perfectly valid explanation.

I don't get why they'd have recruiters who contact people that don't fit their mold on a regular basis if that was the case. It seems like a complete waste of resources.

That is why I think they have some other objective.

> these companies believe that the ability to answer undergrad exam questions about general algoriths-and-data-structures can act as a kind of intelligence quotient for programmers,

I'm pretty sure that is what they think they are doing. I just don't see it as successful because while its easy to remember the names/purposes of algorithms it is difficult to remember all of them at an implementation level because I implement them once and rarely every again. So I'd need to go look something up that I last implemented 5 years ago or Google it.

I run a company (http://interviewkickstart.com) in Sillycon Valley, that helps developers brush-up their data structures, algorithms and system-design skills for interviews. Previous to that, I worked at a very fast growing startup in the valley, where I had joined early and had the privilege to contribute to multiple iterations of their technical interviewing processes.

Here is the thing: not a single employer is happy with their interviewing processes. They do it not because it's the best process ever, but it's the least evil for demands on the business, for their size, stage and culture. Every single process has its flaws.

The core reason most companies ask data-structures/algorithms and such, is because that's the lowest common denominator of knowledge between the interviewer and the interviewee.

How is that?

That's because the field of programming is so vast, that candidates apply to ANY available job, whether that fits their experience or not. e.g. If you worked on Payment systems and you apply to a Deployment systems role, what am I, as an interviewer, going to ask you about? I can't ask you about Payment systems and JUDGE you on your knowledge of 5 years in 45 minutes especially when I have not worked in it myself. And I can't ask you about Deployment systems because you haven't worked with them enough in the past. I hence fall back to the lowest common denominator of knowledge between us, which is, most likely, something in the CS programs we attended.

Then why ask algorithms, of all the CS that we may know in common? Because that needs the least amount of specific knowledge, compared to things like compilers and systems. Algorithms is a proxy to your problem-solving skills. An unfortunate proxy, but the best available among the things we know in common.

If you however end up applying to the exact SAME thing you have been doing, they should not ask you all the algo shit. They should ask you exactly what you've done and how you've done it and judge your experience off of that. After all, interviewing, by definition, is a verification of your experience.

But reality is, that you probably don't want to continue working in what you have been working in. Because you want a change and because frankly, CS is just so vast and cool opportunities exist anywhere. Data Structures and Algorithms hence, become the best equalizer/normalizer among anyone who wants to do programming.

Also, business pressures are such, that as a company, I just cannot spend more than a day or two evaluating someone's fit. Otherwise I'll take my team's attention off of more important things e.g. the holiday e-commerce season, or I'll be second to the market with a feature or I'll miss that big conference where I wanted to launch that product. I'll much rather hire an okay developer with a short interview process and hit that deadline that's going to keep my business afloat, than wait for a unicorn by a thorough evaluation. And when I can only give a short amount of attention to you, I will fall back to the easiest and most prevalent method of interviewing, which is what you see today.

The interviewer is testing their own ability to properly conduct a job interview as much as they're testing the candidate. I realized it when I was interviewing candidates myself.

This has a few advantages:

* You get practice and insight into interview questions

* you always have an idea of your worth

* interviewing stops being something you only do when you NEED a new job. Now it's just a day to day thing and it's less nerve wracking. You don't really want a new job so the pressure is off.

* you may find a much better job and decide to take it.

It's a much bigger deal with small companies (I'm not sure a large one would care much), but if I pick up that you actually have no interest in what we're working on, no intention of leaving your current position, and just applied to brush up your interview skills "for free", I'm going to be seriously annoyed.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- if you've no intention of joining us anyway -- but it doesn't make sense to burn bridges this way.

When interviewing candidates, it can be too easy to adjust your expectations downward after interviewing many unqualified candidates. My hunch is that so many candidates are unqualified because the ones that are actively looking for a job are predominantly the ones that aren't in demand an interview everywhere. If I can mix in qualified candidates that aren't really looking, I can better calibrate my assessment of the market for talent. Plus, with hiring being as difficult as it is, I'll spend the time interviewing to get an opportunity to sell my position and my company to a candidate, whether interested or not. It only takes changing the mind of one excellent developer to make it worthwhile for me.

* get practice at interviewing people for your role

* have an idea of what your market worth is, so they can use this in salary negotiations

* stop interviews being a difficult process they only do when you leave

* keep the option of finding a better candidate and replacing you on such occasions.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you would not tolerate that from your employer. It would show a lack of respect, trust, engagement, etc, basically it would convey to you that your employer doesn't even care about maintaining an appearance of giving a damn about you as a person. You've only just started there last week, and they're already thinking about firing you and replacing you with someone better.

Personally, whilst I think the attitude of getting upset because someone leaves the company is immature, I also think your attitude is disrespectful and shows such a contempt for the place where you're working, such an extreme lack of even the remotest sense of loyalty, that I wouldn't want to employ someone with your attitude ever.

This is without even delving into the fact that you're imposing a tax on the system, taking time away from your current employer (presumably with this attitude you're quite happy to pull sickies to cover your frequent job interviews), as well as other potential employers (interviewing people costs time and money; interviewing people who have no interest in changing jobs is a total waste of money for the company). If everyone suddenly behaved like you, regularly applying to even just a dozen jobs a year even though they have no intention of changing jobs, the recruitment process would incur such gargantuan costs that the economy would suffer, if not crash. Basically, your suggestion above seems to convey that you only really care about yourself. At least that's what it makes me feel from the really self-centred way you've described it.

I'm sorry that this reads like a personal accusation, but you made statements about your personal system of behaviour and I find that system deeply objectionable.

And really the idea of loyalty to a place that has you sign an at will employment agreement and a non-compete clause doesn't make the much sense. And that so many companies seem more than willing to move overseas or outsource work solely (and inevitably foolishly) to reduce wage costs surely shows no loyalty to their employees.

And surely the endlessly quoted "market forces" requires all rational actors to pursue the avenue with the greatest fiscal returns doesn't it?

It would be nice if it were otherwise. And the first mandatory step to bring that about would be eliminating the at will employment agreement.

Now if your company does none of these things and retains employees through their whole careers then I applaud you enormously.

I would have no problem if my employer constantly interviewed for my replacement. This would be an excellent thing to do because they would have a better understanding of where others want to take their careers and general trends in software development. Cheaper than bringing in business consultants.

An interview shouldn't feel like such a transactional process. An interview should be a great way to share between two workers at different companies different team and technical challenges. A good interview is one that I'm learning from, no matter which side I'm on.

There is no reciprocal loyalty from a corporation anywhere, ever. Corporations are amoral. You will be jettisoned without remorse at the first hint of necessity, and not even necessarily at all connected with your performance or loyalty.

No one looks out for you except you. Companies do interview without a specific position open. No reason why individuals shouldn't do the same.

> ... start acting like a *corporation• ...

* I think companies are doing this but they aren't looking to replace me so much as to make sure that anyone person doesn't affect things too drastically if they leave.

* "Frequent job interviews" is over stating things. Many interviews might only progress to phone interviews or coding exercises. One or both parties can learn a lot just from that. In person interviewing is rare because I really don't want to use my pto and spend time away for work just for practice. If the opportunity excites me though, I very well might.

* Getting me excited to interview with a company takes a lot. Especially when I'm happy at work, I'm taking into account big projects I'm working on, my amazing coworkers and bosses that I'm not ready to leave, etc. It's definitely about more than money. You're right that one can't look at it as just a black & white decision. It's multivariable and will shape your life for years to come. Choose wisely.

* Applying to jobs... This is interesting because most opportunities I see come from being cold called with interesting opportunities and having a conversation. It's important to be up front and say, honestly that you're not looking but open to a great opportunity. In the first call I usually give a very high price as well that would justify leaving earlier than I would like. I think it's fair to say that many people have an amount that is walk away money. Ideally if I'm leaving earlier than I'd like I should be able to tell my current boss and they will say "Damn. This sucks but I can't blame you. That's a great opportunity."

You're taking this as a very deceptive practice, but that's not the way it has to work. This can be practiced with an enormous amount of honesty. It might surprise you to know that even after telling companies that I love where I work and don't see myself leaving for a few years, they're fine with that. We will still chat.

At the very least, I'm expanding my network and learning more about other companies. I also use this understanding of other companies when I talk to candidates for my current employer to have some context.

To wrap it all up, here are my guidelines that I follow to do this in an ethical way:

* Be up front with the hiring manager that you are happy in your current job and don't have any plans to make an immediate change but are open to discussing opportunities.

* Accomplish some big things at each company you work for before leaving. In my mind this means don't hop around every few months. Stay a few years, build something you're proud of. If I were going to be coaxed away before accomplishing something it would take A LOT. But hey. I'll let someone try and make a case for it.

* Move on when the opportunity meets your "Oh shit!" criteria and don't feel guilty. If you're good, you'll always be working on an important project and it will never be a great time for a change. I also help my team reduce my bus factor as much as possible. I think that's valuable for the company as well should they ever want to fire me or move me to a different team.

* If you aren't happy at your current place, don't lie. Tell them so they can fix it. If you are happy tell them you are. If they ask if you ever talk to other companies say of course! That you are always networking and bringing the good parts you hear back to the office and simultaneously looking out for great people to recruit.

I have a set of downloaded algorithm lectures by Robert Sedgwick from Coursera (text version: http://algs4.cs.princeton.edu/home/) that I watch before every interview. I make it a point to do this even if I think I remember it well. In fact, I now know parts of the course so well, that I can watch it as 2x speed in VLC, and that refreshes everything in my mind.

To be fair, I'm still in college, and all my interviews were for internship positions and algorithms focussed, so it might definitely differ from your situation. However, what I learnt from this set of videos has never failed me with any of the big companies.

I get a huge kick from algorithms when they solve a specific problem at my current problem elegantly. I suppose for me my algorithm learning plan is to constantly ask myself "what is the simplest form of data that I need and which algorithms then process it most elegantly for my current problem".