Selecting Against Experience - Do Employers Know?

IBitOBear asks: "A couple days ago I did 'the interview loop' at that leading online retailer. Over the course of six hours I was repeatedly introduced to a guy in his early twenties, who would then ask me to write out code on a white-board for a problem that you might find in the study guide for a 200-level computer science class. I have 20 years of experience in programming and systems design. And in several cases the interviewers were vague, semantically incorrect, or self-contradictory. Interviewer blunders included not understanding that non-normal forms in databases -can be- more correct or efficient when the domain of a data is extremely limited; or choosing a leader among N candidates -is- a byzantine agreement problem. In short, the loop would have been perfect to weed out some guy getting his first job fresh out of school, but it definitely exerted selection pressure towards excluding experienced candidates. So employers, what are you doing to make sure that you are not culling out candidates with the low-ball? Job seekers, what do you do when you find yourself trapped in a sophomore study group?"

Comments

at "that" online retailer, they probably know

[yagu]

They probably know they are leaning towards fresh blood, and probably will pass on more experienced and stronger candidates. I know quite a few people who work "there", and inside, they are one of the top IT shops, bar none.

Also, there are a few things to be aware of... part of the interview process intentionally (from talking to insiders there, and at Microsoft) introduces vagueness, incorrectness, and other troubling aspects to problem solving. One of the things they're trying to observe is how a candidate deals with the obstacles.

A friend at Microsoft told me if a candidate got flustered and angry at an intractable "problem" he (or she) was pretty much disqualified on the spot. At Microsoft, you could tell your job was "no go" if it didn't last the entire day. (Mine did, sigh... and I got the job, sigh again.) Typically they "nice" way was to tell the candidate the next interviewer got caught up in some responsibilities, and that would be that.

My personal opinion, not that it amounts to a hill of beans for these companies, they sell themselves more short than they might realize. Business is about numbers games and businesses play the curve within one sigma, that's it.

As for what to do when trapped in a sophomore study group, that sophomore group pretty much holds all of the cards. Candidates would be wise to suck it up, be friendly, and at least pretend not to be bothered by their seeming snobbery. (Also, by the way, the snobbery at Microsoft is real.)

Some are better than others selecting excellent candidates (that online retailer comes to mind), but I think there's a slew of mediocre companies out there that would be better performers with a bit more appetite for investing in "old timers". Of course, coming from an old timer, I'm probably introducing my own bias.

(ASIDE, and By The Way... you said over the course of six hours you were repeatedly introduced to a guy in his early twenties... If management had any of their wits about them, they'd consider getting rid of that guy... he should have been recognizing you by the 2nd or 3rd introduction. Sheesh.)

Re:at "that" online retailer, they probably know

[Skreems]

I agree with most of that. I'm basically one of the 20 year olds the story is complaining about. I ask retardedly easy questions when I interview people, and on occasion I will be a bit vague on purpose, to see if they will ask clarifying questions or just fumble around for a half hour (guess which one gets you hired?). The problem is, I've interviewed people who claim to have been working in industry longer than I've been alive, and you'd be amazed how many of them can't code what basically boils down to a double nested for loop. I've had people go up to the white board and fumble around for 30 minutes only to wind up back where they started. You have to ask those retardedly easy questions because half the candidates can't answer them, even the ones who've been full time workers for decades.

As for incorrect knowledge of some algorithmic stuff... there's two options. One is, they may know the correct answer, but are waiting to see if you do, and if you'll correct them. In one of my interviews coming out of college, a person said something about the problem I was working that was blatantly incorrect. He'd been working on a similar system for months, so I'm convinced that he was just seeing whether I'd correct him, or defer to him as "the authority". I corrected him, and I got the offer. The second option is that he doesn't, in which case you should stand up to him anyway. Even if he doesn't know you're right, most people will respect someone who isn't afraid to contradict them. If you just blandly defer to everything they say, how do they know what it would be like to try to design a system with you?

Not all of the impressions of snobbery at Microsoft are real, though. I found them very friendly in my interviews, and very down-to-earth. Probably depends on the group you're interviewing with, but there's a lot of people who are just good at what they do, and want you to show them that you're good at it as well.

My experience

[cperciva]

A couple of weeks ago I did 'the interview loop' at that leading search engine. I had already told my recruiter that there wasn't any point asking me about 200-level material, and aside from one silly question about topological sorting my phone interviewer respected that. When I arrived for my on-site interviews, several interviewers apologized about being required to ask really easy questions. They asked their questions; I provided my answers; they asked why my solution wasn't the same as their solution; I explained that my solution was asymptotically faster; and we moved on to more interesting discussions.

Having not interviewed at that leading online retailer, I don't know if the situation is the same there; but my impression at that leading search engine was that my interviewers were very quick to recognize that I was more qualified than they were and to adapt their interviewing appropriately.

Re:Umm.. maybe you need to look

[IBitOBear]

You read to much into my question. I wasn't "outraged" I was bored to tears and disapointed. I didn't say "I have 20 years of experience" to them. I said that to you, the reader of the article, to give you some basis for my position. In a slashdot lead article you only get so much space and editorial attention to make the interesting points and spur on the discussion.

I did answer the questions posed. No hissy fit, no condecension. I liked the people and we got along OK.

The mire comes, however. One of the responses, for instance, was "I've never seen it done that way before" followed by a thats-impossible shake of the head and an "why are you comparing the pointers and then the contents of the pointers like that" when I explained how this second tier (e.g. more complex) question was still soluable in O(log(n)) time using the method presented.

Several interviewers said in the interviews that they didn't understand the code as written etc, then the group consensus was that they needed someone "more technical".

ASIDE: I will fully credit that a good percentage of the lack of understanding may well have been introduced by my crappy white-board penmenship. 8-)