 |
| One user recommended this comment. What they said: |
|
clarry Nov 5, 2019 | on: Ask HN: What is the point of algorithm-heavy interviews? | context
> I'd just like to add that is easier to compare candidates But you might just be comparing one's ability to feign smarts versus another's ability to work out a problem from first principles. Comparing apples to oranges might be easy but the results may or may not be that useful. This remains one of my favorite ancedotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17106291 |
The best way to perform well in an interview is to have seen and worked on the problem at some point beforehand.
When I got a job at Google (in a previous life), two of the questions in my interview loop were ones that I had seen in previous interviews. I kept my mouth shut about that and faked brilliance in the moment. That is, I pretended to be stumped for a second, then I created a narrative where I had a sequence of 2 or 3 "Ah-ha!" moments where I figured out how to refine my solution.
I cued off the interviewer, waiting until they seemed just about to blurt out a hint, when I raised my hand and said, "WAIT! Maaaybe.... I can use a BFS instead of a DFS here and label the cells!" Then the interviewer would usually smile and nod in satisfaction.
Finally, I "stumbled on" the "right answer" and slammed out the code that I had pretty much memorized up to that point.
Make a stupid game, I'll play the stupid game, and have fun doing it.
For the record, I kicked ass at Google (getting promoted twice) before moving on to greener pastures.