I'm starting to wonder if design interviews are not only useless, but actually contributors to poor design. I'm still thinking through this, by my reasoning for this is:
-
-
Interviewers sometimes try to get around this by saying you should questions assumptions, etc., but I don't think this would have worked in either case. In one case, the solution resolved something that had been an open problem in IR for decades, that's not interview material.
Show this thread -
In the other case, the solution was to relax an unnecessary constraint. I think it would've been v. difficult to successfully challenge such a fundamental assumption in an interview, it's probably faster to just build the thing (which is what I did), but not feasible in interview
Show this thread -
For my most recent design interview my answers to "how would you scale M up to limit A?" were, in descending order of preference (the interviewers thankfully didn't fail me for this): 1. Buy a solution from N that's known to scale up to 100x A
Show this thread -
2. Talk to expert O, who has solved this problem before, ask for other experts to talk to and see what they have to say 3. Read the relevant bits on LWN and LKML, understand how the open source implementation of M by company P works 4. Run experiments, profile, read code, etc.
Show this thread -
5. The usual design interview nonsense, boxes and arrows, Fermi estimates, say "pubsub" a few times, etc. The interviewers very patiently explained to me that solutions 1-4 were invalid and kindly didn't fail me for those (I think most would've), but what's the point of this?
Show this thread -
I see a lot of systems that look like they were designed by skipping straight to step (5). Of course I can't prove a causal link from design interviews, but it seems plausible that design interviews train people to design real systems without understanding the problem domain.
Show this thread -
People say these interviews "measure how you think", but
@hillelogram has looked into the history for other kinds of interview questions, he found "how you think" was a post hoc rationalization for questions that were originally asked for other reasons. Likely same here.Show this thread -
But even without looking at the historical record, "how you think" seems bogus To answer a Fermi estimation question, you just need to know how to play the Fermi estimation game. Make up numbers, multiply them together, and then you pass. Basically ditto for design interviews.pic.twitter.com/zoOU85g5ac
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Design interviews are good ways to understand how the candidate will influence the design process once they are on the job. If they're able to ask the right questions, probe in the right direction, they're an asset in terms of being a great peer and mentor.
-
FWIW, I believe this aspect of interviewing needs to be present in algorithmic interviews as well - it's important for the candidate to ask the right questions. In a design setting, it's important for me to understand if the engineer can think of scale, right trade offs etc.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.