I've walked out on a couple of interviews when they tried whiteboard coding. I politely laughed and said I really don't do performance art. I thanked them for their time and left.
What? What would you rather have? A takehome? People find a reason to complain about those as well because the ones administering them become really god damned nitpicky.
What I try to give is a three parter simple string parsing manipulation question where you build on each successive part as well as providing both valid and invalid inputs for them to use as test cases. It shows organizational skills and the ability to break down problems into reusable parts as well as the super basics of string parsing. I think being able to do that much under time pressure shows the learned qualities of a programmer since most will go with what's been ingrained into them by way of habit.
I can understand brain teasers being a poor measure of ability but I'm super on board for online whiteboarding when done properly. 45 minutes, no muss, no fuss. No 6 hours on a weekend to make something. No impenetrable question that requires tricks you don't need for day to day work that you can later look up.
There's more and more companies that don't give you coding exercises at all. They'll have code reviews, or a debugging exercise, system design, all the other stuff, but will skip the algo question.
I hate algo/whiteboarding myself, especially complex ones, but I think there's some value in doing some minimal in person fizz-buzzing, especially if you work for a very popular company. The amount of people who can talk through interviews all day long but can't code is too high not to at least attempt to filter them out.
What I do is give a very simple question, and make it clear that its not a "gotcha" question and that I just want to talk through with them how they'd solve it, to at least filter out the "deer in headlights" candidates. No one walked out of that to this day.
Whiteboarding is a skill you would use at most large companies. I've driven many design discussions via white boarding on the job. Being able to do it in a job interview shows you possess such a skill for interactive design.
They’re all bad options in some way, but at least takehomes simulate how most people actually approach a project, rather than sitting there trying to do something while someone stares at you. Some of us really, really hate that.
Well here's something that may make you feel a bit better about interviewing:
When I'm asking you a technical question, I'm looking at the code you're writing, not you. The camera is only on to make sure you're not lip synching or something. The layout of your code and the logic that went into it is more important than your mannerisms.
I refuse takehomes on principle because I've had enough bad experiences with poor reviewers so I'll never give one out.
whiteboard/leetcode is not necessary. discuss a prior project and walk through code of a prior project and discuss it. if you don’t have a prior project, build one. takes only a few days and you will have a new asset you own the IP to. if your interviewers don’t do it this way, pass politely.
Ideally? Not to assume my resume/education experience is a lie and to instead assume that I've done enough technical work by this point to merit respect that I don't need to prove some "technical merit" via any sort of whiteboarding exercise that is neither anything like day-to-day technical work nor it is it much more than time wasting busy work to give interviewers plenty of room for excuses on why they don't like people.
But, I'm in a minority opinion in general that I'd rather see the industry mature and if it needs to build a standardized test like the MCAT or the Bar Exam or PE certification to stop asking trivia questions in interviews it should just build a standardized test and stop wasting everyone's time.
I mean we could have like a bar but that would severely limit opportunities of smart people who can code. It’s one of the best/worst things about our industry.
Personally, I wouldn’t suffer, but I think as an industry we're unique in this way and it’s kind of overall maybe slightly better than not.
> that would severely limit opportunities of smart people who can code
Whether or not that's true, is it really important? I guess it depends on your perspective. Do you think the industry exists to provide job opportunities, or to solve real business problems?
I think by serving an alternative way of doing things we're a nice position to imagine making that comparison. So, which industries are more innovative software/tech or those that have some kind of standards/gate-keeping?
Admittedly it's not like a super fair comparison because we're still in the a very nascent phase of software as an industry, but I think as a concept the question still poses merit. Maybe when the industry matures more we'll finally establish a bar, but in the meanwhile I think most of the money people feel that there's just too much work to do for that to happen.
Personally, I don't really know what's the optimal way to do things. Mainly my point is that it's interesting that we even exist. Like, we are one of the only "professionals" who don't have any standards to adhere... and this is precisely why interviews are so hard in our field. Sometimes they're asinine, as has been discussed here.
(FWIW I try really hard to be a good interviewer and to give the candidate a pleasant experience and to design everything so they feel fairly judged and I get good signal)
A lot of professions split into separate job categories for white collar/blue collar or "formally educated"/"on the job learning". Lawyer/paralegal, Doctor/RN/Nurse Practitioner, etc.
I don't know if that is something that software could use, but it certainly is a known option, and might help. In some ways software already has bespoke versions of those career paths, but there's no standardization from company to company and that's part of what makes interviewing hard because even career paths mean different things to different companies.
I give take-homes because they’re a better representation of people’s actual work output.
But I’m not giving them because I think people are lying. I can tell if people are lying about their experience in the first interview. The assignment part of the interview is to assess the quality of their work. Some people do awesome work straight out of school, and some have been doing awful work for 20 years.
We do have standardized testing: certs. But they're of limited usefulness in determining someone's job performance.
But it is about "lying": you don't trust the quality of people's "actual work output" despite what their resume states. You have a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude with respect to people's professional work. You aren't trusting that other companies develop talent or prune people "doing awful work".
Sure, a resume isn't about "job performance" but how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years?
I understand where you are coming from and appreciate it is a common attitude in this industry, I just think it is a wild attitude, and an attitude related directly to the immaturity of our industry that everyone assumes the labor market is inefficient and doesn't reflect "quality"/"performance".
> But it is about "lying": you don't trust the quality of people's "actual work output" despite what their resume states.
No, I’m saying that resumes simply don’t convey quality of work. They convey the duration of work and who it was for.
Duration isn’t a proxy for quality. Beyond the first couple years of experience, I don’t think I’ve seen much of a reliable pattern between experience and ability.
I can’t really look at some random project at some random company on a resume and tell you whether participation in that project amounted to brilliant engineering work, or whether it was changing ‘if’ statements three times a week in a legacy system.
> how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years?
I’ve been on the wrong end of hiring mistakes where that was exactly the situation.
There are definitely certain types of jobs that are “known for being cushy” in this industry.
Although, that’s nothing unique to tech. People coast in tons of white-collar jobs.
A standardized test might actually be ok but I doubt it could encompass all of the technologies that appear over the years which one would use at a company if the company is looking for a specific skillset. That's why we go with resumes. I would be willing to bet that you have at least one thing on your resume that is embellished ever so slightly. Some people take it a bit further than others, which is what these interviews are meant to ferret out.
> A standardized test might actually be ok but I doubt it could encompass all of the technologies that appear over the years which one would use at a company if the company is looking for a specific skillset.
I think the problem here is the company never knows if it is looking for a specific skillset or not, and "how specific" to hire. Then using that as a crutch to avoid asking hard questions of itself if it can hire-to-train.
Most specific skillsets can be trained with a broad enough education. That's what most other industries/career paths rely on. Software uses the excuse that technologies move "too quickly" to avoid hiring to train or hiring generalists that would be fine with a specific skillset if given the right guidance/time/budget.
> I would be willing to bet that you have at least one thing on your resume that is embellished ever so slightly.
I don't. Why would I?
This is exactly what I'm complaining about. As an industry we've taken a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality and interviews aren't about respect but presuming lies and always about "ferreting out" the liars. It's awful and just about no other industry works that way in hiring decisions.
I've had interviews find lies that a recruiter edited into my resume, but that's a problem with the industry's relationship with bad recruiters and doesn't seem a good reason to call me a liar, when I'm not the one doing that.
Then you're a paragon of honesty. There are many others who aren't, sadly. Rather than assume people are liars I use the live coding test more as another filter. It verifies the resume, sure, but it also showcases or sometimes exposes other aspects of the candidate that a resume or maybe just their resume cannot.
> Ideally? Not to assume my resume/education experience is a lie and to instead assume that I've done enough technical work by this point to merit respect that I don't need to prove some "technical merit"
Unfortunately, I have interviewed many candidates who have excellent resume, relevant experience, but who can't write basic string manipulation code which does not even require any advanced algorithms or data structures.
I think a lot of this is a variant of "survivor bias" ("failure bias"?): a whiteboard interview tests unrelated things like nerves/anxiety/stress/context. You have no idea how many of those candidates you interviewed were just having a bad day, or were too focused on trying to solve for "traps" in the interview they stumbled over basics, or had to do so much advanced string manipulation that got trapped in trying to re-simplify their concerns from real world practical work (forest) to "basic string manipulation" (trees).
I think a lot of it gets down to what are we actually testing for here?
> You have no idea how many of those candidates you interviewed were just having a bad day
Sure, which is why we have multiple interviews and not just one.
> or were too focused on trying to solve for "traps" in the interview they stumbled over basics
I disagree to an extent. Its not a "here is the problem, you have N minutes, go". I work with the candidate - guiding them, explaining, understanding their rationale.
> or had to do so much advanced string manipulation that got trapped in trying to re-simplify their concerns from real world practical work (forest) to "basic string manipulation" (trees).
I am talking about simple string manipulation which can be done with just loops.
> I think a lot of it gets down to what are we actually testing for here?
That they can code independently, think about the problem, reason about the potential edge cases and communicate their rationale. Its not a binary decision, but how they are overall.
You are testing that they can code independently by forcing them to code in a group setting? "Guiding them, explaining, understanding their rationale" is about the exact opposite of testing for "can they code independently". Not to mention all the usual issues that whiteboard "coding" resembles real world coding not at all.
Especially if you are just talking simple string manipulation which can be done with just loops; either you are asking the candidate to reinvent the wheel of a library function they use all the time and should never write by hand in a real world codebase or your example is contrived in other ways in which the real answer is way more complicated due to performance issues (because low level string manipulation likely is a performance issue).
This is exactly where it becomes a trap, too: in a real world application I'd need to evaluate any and every string manipulation written by hand to test it for performance issues and determine the appropriate string manipulation tools for the job. In C# today that includes knowing when to use a StringBuilder versus knowing a lot of gory details of Span<T> and String.Create and a deep rabbit hole of memory management issues (.NET strings are immutable, so this pretty much accounts for all real world string manipulation in .NET today that it is never "just" string manipulation). Other languages have related memory management concerns, but different dialects and mental overhead. Also, it's 2021 and no one in the real world should be doing any string manipulation at all without accounting for Unicode, so in a real world application you need to make sure you are using your platform's correct APIs for "rune" manipulation rather than raw codepoint manipulation for Unicode safety.
In a whiteboard exercise you are probably going to tell me "don't worry about that" or "just keep it simple", but that's the biggest "reasoning" behind potential edge cases and after a number of years of professional work I can't shut off that firehose of practical concerns and it will take me a while to get to the "simple exercise" because my brain has lots of in-grained habits at this point and you are asking for "coding insight" like the real world, but in no way like an actual practical programming issue and the real programming issues still get in the way because I "know too much" at this point to react well in any "simple" problem.
The other trap here is "soft-skills", again deeply contrary to "coding independently": while "coding" you want the candidate to express themselves out loud and communicate their rationale. While many of the pop psychology ideas of "right brain, left brain" are mostly wrong (or at least wildly over-generalized), the basic idea applies here well: you are asking candidates to light up two very different sections of their brain all at once. Maybe for someone far more used to pair programming that's a bit like walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time, but for someone used to "coding independently" (as you are asking to test) that's a lot more like those stupid pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time "tests". You can do it, it takes a lot more energy and conscious thought, and it doesn't "feel natural" for "coding independently" at all. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that not just incredibly draining but a migraine trigger and it is very hard for me not to end nearly every interview with a nasty migraine.
> think about the problem, reason about the potential edge cases
You'd test for these better with creative problem solving exercises. Everyone likes to make fun of those "silly Microsoft-style questions" like "describe all the functions of Vending machine to me like I've never used one" or...
But that is sort of a performance art response isn’t it? Unless you think that whiteboard interviews are so bad that they’re universally seen as wholly inappropriate.
The thing is they’re not. Sometimes we want to see code that runs and compiles. Sometimes people want to see how you think. Whiteboard interviews are designed to do the later, because coding is not thinking.
I think the whole whiteboard interview = bad phase of blog posts from thought leaders was half hot takes from people who didn’t like how they were evaluated in that dimension, and half actually companies trying to push products that they sell. I don’t however think the consensus among senior engineers ever really bought that. It was more nuanced, like a “yeah, it’s not the only thing we should do, but programming interviews with an IDE shouldn’t come at the permanent exclusion of whiteboard interviews altogether” sort of thing.
Suppose a chef interviews for a kitchen. Rather than anyone testing the chef on his or her ability, they test them on their poetry.
That’s exactly analogous to whiteboard interviews. You can feel however you want to feel, and no one will change your mind. The fact is, you never code on a whiteboard. You’re not testing ability.
I am not going to spend three hours of work, when I'd rather be doing something else, only to be fucking ghosted. (times by godknows how many companies.)
I got bought out by a FAANG and I am eternally grateful that I "only" had to do four interviews to keep my job. Rather than the real time coding horse shit.
A FAANG on the CV without preparing leetcode BS for months!
I had one of the guys I was managing in a startup get into the AI company that Google bought without leetcoding.
I was pretty jelly but still determined not to spend months on leetcoding, dealing with shitty big org politics, performance reviews and having to work from the office (it was still back in the days when people were free to work from the office).
Without the cost of leetcoding I could probably tolerate it for a couple of years and resell myself as a Xers for the rest of my career.
With leetcoding and the risk of failure, fuck that.
With that still to come, we as a company stopped working on the core business for two weeks and settled down for leetcode practice and mock interviews. We had the luxury of doing it all together and learning form each other in work hours. So it was a lot less stressful than it would have otherwise been.
In the UK it's illegal to buy a company and fire/rehire all the staff. The way they got round that was to say that if we didn't agree to waive our rights, we wouldn't get any money. The money we were offered as part of the share settlement was about half what we could expect if we went to court(ie 1/2 a years wage net). The main deal from the evil overlord was "join us and you'll be spaffed with cash"
turns out there are a lot of myths about being bought out, its nowhere near as glamorous as we've been lead to believe.
but yeah, I don't think I'd have ever really have applied, especially given the silly amount of prep one is supposed to do.
Guess you will never work at most of FAANG then. I did 5 back-to-back whiteboard leetcode's in one day last time I did that.
Was able to provide a working solution for all of them. One of the interviews I was unable to do the optimum solution, but discussed how I think it could be done better. No offer, heh.
I have been told that it's now mostly luck getting in. My lunch break person even told me that.
I actually love white boarding as it's what I use to design. I find it a way to focus my thoughts and control the conversation. My old office had three walls of white boards though :)
They(rude interviewers) think that you are taking something from them, that you are after something they have. They believe that we(people looking for a job) are parasites, so they want to avoid us.
This was a data science take home for a Director level position. Multiple data sets, domain specific, bad/missing data that you had to discover, predictions needed that combine disparate data types together, data is complex enough that off the shelf models wouldn't work, writeup of how to deploy in production, etc. I estimated 10+ hours to do it even half properly and that was probably an underestimate even if you got lucky with your first approach.
Not currently interviewing, but in the past i've failed interviews because I didn't do something that the interviewer didn't ask me to do. This would be something like expecting the interviewee to go in depth about a specific part of the problem that to the interviewee might have thought was trivial, or expecting them to do TDD in a coding exercise when the interviewer never mentioned it. I can brush off overt rudeness, but it's always rubbed me the wrong way that some interviewers expect you to read their mind.
I've seen the TDD one, and I hate that so much. The last time I interviewed for companies, I started asking "how do you want me to answer this? Are you looking for me to get a complete solution quickly, or write this like I was writing software I planned to maintain?", but I really shouldn't have to - putting your candidates through a guessing game of which you want is a dumb way to interview.
I had a recruiter suggest I do TDD during my coding interviews. When I was in the interviews, I started using TDD. It seemed like the actual interviewer was indifferent about me using TDD. He even seemed surprised, but I did it anyway because the recruiter suggested it.
Using TDD takes longer during an interview, so I didn't get as far into the problem as what I think the interviewer was expecting. I assume people that didn't use TDD performed better because they were able to get farther in the problem.
I didn't get an offer. I'm not sure if it's because of the TDD issue, but I can't think of anything else that could have contributed to the outcome. I sent my feedback to the recruiter after I was notified I didn't get an offer, and I asked for any feedback, but never heard anything.
One of the things I’ve written in my book on coding interviews is around expectations and covering off any shortcuts/interview specific things you are doing. It’s annoying but asking:
1. Is there a specific approach or methodology you would like me to take in this test?
2. Saying stuff like “I’m going to do this in functional/OOP”, “I’ll use print for debugging”, “I won’t be using a testing library” etc with a quick explanation goes along way to ironing out these differences
I agree that the above is what we should do as individuals to make our own interview experience smoother. It's a shame that we have to though, considering that the interviewers all have been interviewees themselves in the past and should recognize this issue.
Lack of presence. Any interviewer that's not giving the interview as much of their full attention as possible (emergencies aside, of course). I've been on both sides of this, and I feel bad for interviews I've given where I was distracted or underprepared.
Conversely, my best interviews (and 1:1s) have been with people who are fully present.
> and I feel bad for interviews I've given where I was distracted
I had this happen, i had his resume up on my screen for the interview and i was taking notes and suddenly i got a message that there was some big production issue i had to help with, so yeah i couldn't focus on the interview. I still feel bad about that
I've had this, and it's honestly just better to duck out, apologize and reschedule the interview. If you're worried about candidate experience make sure to get back to them within an hour or two - if the production issue takes much longer than that you've probably blown your chances anyway just by virtue of giving the impression that multiple hour production issues happen with any regularity.
Really minor but I interviewed with a big second tier tech company that you’ve heard of and right after asking me the first question decided that would be the best time to raise his standing desk, which was very slow to raise and required him to sort of weird hover and stand in time with the camera as it rose. Not rude but really distracting.
Haha, that might have made it a bit less awkward to be honest - heck, even saying “hey, I’ve planned badly, I’m just going to pop up my standing desk” would have been enough
I remember it because it was an amusing and slightly weird interaction in hindsight. I remember all sorts of odd actions from me and others over the years. If you don’t absorb and remember how others act around you (and how they react to your own actions) then you can’t improve your own actions in the future.
That seems like such an obvious thing to do I don’t think it needs stating; I’m surprised you even thought to bring it up.
I've had multiple interviewers over the years tell me to my face that they didn't think that my education was useful/valid/rigorous because it wasn't Stanford (or MIT).
Though I'd still prefer that to the ones that told me that my more than a decade of professional experience isn't useful/valid because my parts of the industry "chose the wrong programming languages". I particularly loved the hypocrisy of getting that criticism from a company trying to win more companies like the ones I've worked for to their Cloud platforms. It seemed pretty obvious why they were having difficulty winning some of them over to their platform if they absolutely just hated the languages they worked with.
Haven't had anyone overtly rude, but one strange experience.
Did a live coding and they said something along the lines of being one of the fastest to complete it and scheduled another call. So far so good.
Follow up call with some higher up on "culture". The guy seemed like a parody human, reminded me of PC Principal, 'out here crushin it bra on the daily', that type. Except he wasn't some young out of college bro, but some 40ish guy in a shirt and tie. He really spoke at me the whole time, I don't remember saying much. Maybe he saw my disdain, maybe I rolled my eyes, I don't remember.
About 20 mins after that call I got a rejection email. Very odd experience, but I assume I dodged a bullet.
One of those guys that instinctively need to have every moment filled with talk, and if there’s a moment of breathing room he sees it as his duty to pick up your slack?
If so you were expected to interrupt him.
Yeah, sounds like “not a culture fit”. I wouldn’t have been, either.
I've had candidates do their phone interviews by walking out of the office they're working at currently. It was awesome trying to understand their answers as a motorcycle rips past on the street. I think its just a lack of respect and self effort awareness on all sides. Just think about what you are going to be doing ahead of time is all it takes.
This is a tricky one, and I can't really fault an interviewee if it's a 30 minute phone screen. Cafes can be just as bad as out on the street for noise, most candidates won't be comfortable getting a meeting room in their office, and finding space to have a quiet call for just 30 minutes can be really difficult.
When I worked in an industrial office park, I could go out to my car to do a phone interview. When I was working downtown, where I didn't drive to work, there was pretty much nowhere to go that wouldn't involve some kind of background noise.
I did that myself. Actually did like 4-5 hours of calls in total like that with one company. I have zero bad feelings and the interviewers were cool about it.
I just can't afford to take 4-5 days off each time someone thinks we might be a good match and needs a 30 minutes (which is always more). When I'm motivated to switch jobs I might talk to a few companies and all interactions are kind of short and in the middle of day. They seldom want to meet at 7 am or at 6 pm. Middle of the day? Sure, but we both understand it means finding a middle ground.
It is tough for people who have to take 30 mins out of their day job for an interview. I get that and respect that. However, I look for an explanation right at the beginning which shows that they have humility and understand that this it not ideal but this is the best they can do considering they are at work. However, if they expect me to "get it" without them even mentioning at beginning, I take that as a sign of "I am so good so I couldn't care less about telling you why I cannot do the interview in an ideal setting".
Treating me like a child because I'm applying for new grad/junior positions. If they looked at my birthdate they'd notice I'm 30. I'm trying to support a family, and I am unavailable during the days because I am working full time to support that goal, but they want me to participate in 2-3 interview steps which could range anywhere from 15 minutes to 4 hours and it's apparently rude of me to ask for that information beforehand so I can try to get my current job not to fire me for constantly taking time off with relatively short notice.
This shit is so difficult. I took technical interviews in gas station parking lots on lunch breaks, used my 1 sick day per month to try to get a break out of my terrible entry-level law office job, where I too would be fired if I needed to take next Tuesday afternoon off without explanation. It took leaving that job and a little bit of a leap of faith to finally get some flexibility to get those interviews that were worth it.
I feel you. I am going to go into interview number FOUR tomorrow and I have not even gotten to the 'onsite.' From there it's another four interviews. Trust me that it does not get any better at the 'senior' level either.
Sure feel sorry for the next-gen kids that will have to put up with 8-10 interviews (at a single company, for a single role) or more just to land a job.
Maybe we should blame how hard it is to fire people?
I've never dealt with a rude interviewer. A friend of mine mentioned that her interviewer showed up 10 minutes late to the call, then interviewed her for an entirely different position (and wouldn't change course after being told as much), all while peeling an eating a small orange.
I had one interview at a financial "family office" where a rich person forms a company to manage their investments. In this case it was a high profile trade who was banned from taking customers.
I was brought in, I mined the front of house staff. Its always good to see how they are feeling. Plus if you are nice to them, you get the good biscuits. They looked fine, until they started talking about the CEO/boss. They then looked stressed.
The interview started started a bit odd, the first person that interviewd me was nice, but looked at my CV and said: "well youre a linux guy like me, but they really want a windows guy" I thought it was a bit odd as the job spec was mostly linux hooked to AD (which was a dark art at the time, one I had mastered.)
Interviewer one went out and brought in the "head of engineering/systems/something".
I was treated to four sneering people. The "Header" started off with "oh you can't do windows can you?" I replied that I can hold my own(insert story about AD migration) This shut him up a bit, and made him more hostile. His acolytes (think crabbe and goyle plus two extras)
The interview reached a natural end. I was then told to go out and get lunch, and come back for more interviews. I leave my stuff there and go out for lunch, and come back at the ascribed time.
I walk through the door to where stuff was, I can here a stage whisper "OH my god, he's come back, whats he doing here? No you tell him to go."
Neeedless to say I did(Edit did not) get the job.
I wrote a message to the recruiter explaining what happened, and that I expect grownups to tell me to my fucking face that they've made a mistake.
- By refusing to disclose salary range and insisting I should go through the process before they can tell me. They don't get an interview.
- By trying paint their company as a startup despite over a billion dollars in investor money or, in one case, being publicly traded. Used to justify below market rate salary.
- By claiming role is fully remote and then slashing salary range at the very end of the process "if you want to work remotely".
- By offering salary range reduced by 40-70% if you are not in US. Doesn't matter that cost of living in Canada or western Europe is not lower. They are paying for the value I'm bringing, so my location should only matter for tax and timezone purposes.
As for situations you described only once I've had someone join the call while driving - 2nd interviewer. I made a joke about the purpose of the whole process for them to have one more employee not one less because he's driving distracted, suggested we should reschedule when everyone can safely fully focus on the interview. They apologized, rescheduled and then offered me salary of 45% of the lower end of the initial range, because while I was "more than qualified for the role they had a multiplier for Canada that applied here".
If we are comparing expensive cities, we might as well start with Geneva:
> You would need around 7,858.14$ (7,254.94Fr.) in Geneva to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 8,300.00$ in San Francisco, CA (assuming you rent in both cities).
Although other countries/cities in Europe are cheaper than this, you should know that Switzerland has extremely low income tax, compared to others.
The cost of living doesn't really vary much no matter where you live in California. Rent maybe varies between 2,500 and 4,500 for an apartment, but other costs are still the same.
I'm curious, do you mean you're applying to companies where the interviewers actually have a say in salary negotiations? AFAIK, interviewers almost never a say on compensation, except in very small companies where your interviewer is a co-founded or partner.
I'm not looking. I've got companies reaching out to me. If there is no recruiter or recruiter defers to interviewer to discuss salary range then I want that question out of the way before I spend my time interviewing.
It doesn't matter if they tell me what the salary range is or confirm my expectations are within their salary range for that role - I just want to know upfront before everyone involved wastes their time.
As I say above, if there's a fit between company and candidate then things can be done to make sure that everybody is happy. You can't do that with inflexible salary ranges ahead of time.
If upper bound of their salary range is e.g. 30% below what I make right now it's very unlikely we can find an agreement and even if we could I'd be wary to accept an offer, because as an "expensive hire" I'd be less likely to get a raise in the future.
I used to prefer explicit salary ranges when my salary was in the middle of the bell curve. On the higher end of the bell curve, I've started to think explicit salary ballparks can be a bit limiting. Companies that pay top dollar are usually on levels.fyi and you can get a pretty decent idea of what the pay rates are even if the recruiter/interviewer doesn't tell you. These companies also typically have multiple roles open at all levels and can't realistically spam people about multiple roles. So a lack of salary numbers upfront can be a tool that you can leverage to upsell yourself towards higher pay roles early in the process (in addition to being able to negotiate numbers at the end).
^ this - unless looking at reporting to a CXO or director the interviewers, even the HM, are usually only slightly less of a minion than the candidate. They may have a range, but it's nowhere near what you think it is and if they want you they will offer the top of it.
Eh, that's how negotiation works. In this job market, it's certainly a two-way street. Instead of asking them for a salary range, you should be giving them a salary range. And if they change any expectations during the process, call them out.
If there isn't a salary range in their job posting AND they are reaching out to me IMO it's perfectly fair for me to either ask for a salary range or for them to confirm my expectations are within their salary range before I commit my time to the interview.
Salary ranges don't define a generic position for experienced people. When we're trying to hire we think of the position we're trying to fill and write up an ad for that. But you get varying quality and experience and sometimes great candidates might be worth fighting HR for. It's not the first time I've applied for a more junior position but when my experience becomes apparent then the hiring manager will fight for extra budget allocation to bring in the extra experience. It's a two way street so salary can't really pigeon hole candidates ahead of time as those must hire candidates would slip away. Generally be the time you're talking salary then the rapport is there and honesty is key. We'll ask you what you're looking for and try to make it happen. There are various tools companies have such as stock, sign on bonuses, etc, to allow compensation flexibility. You have to be willing to work with the hiring companies.
> You have to be willing to work with the hiring companies.
Agreed if I'm looking for a job. If companies are reaching out to me when I'm not looking it's up to them to show me there is some upside to jumping ship, other than default buzzword package. Stonewalling any attempts to confirm an agreement is even remotely possible is a dealbreaker for me in that situation.
When the interviewer is obviously discovering my CV during the interview.
When the interviewer demeans you by boasting about their company's/team's achievements while implying "why are you here?" (well, you've invited me, remember?)
I once had an interviewer boast about their accomplishments and how important they were at their previous employer. It was very confusing since I wasn't applying for a position at their previous employer.
In interviewed at a local startup [1] and had a nice chat with one of the founders. We talked about 1h. It was pleasant and I got a code review assignment, timeboxed to 1h. Not sure if I managed to do something useful, but I handed back my solution in time and never heard from them again. I pinged them once more, but no response. I have not been able to figure out what that was about... maybe they were trying to get external people to review their code? Like, 1h of their time for 2h of mine? Or were they just not very well organized?
If it's a small startup where the founders are doing first interviews, then I'm sure they're just overwhelmed with tasks. I don't see what the value would be in having a founder chat with you for 1 hour to get a 1 hour code review out of you... unless they think your time is more valuable than their founders, which doesn't make much sense.
I had some guy do a phone interview from the beach, idk about rude but that was annoying.
anyone who ghosts after multiple interviews
I find it annoying when people start lecturing me about their hate of some tech.
I did some "open book" on site programing quiz, i looked up the syntax for else if in python and the guy goes "hmm do you really know python?" i switch between like 3 languages, so yeah ill double check syntax...
i need to think of more, i hate interviews. It feels like the smaller the company the worse the interview experience is. funny enough i think facebook was the most pleasant interview i did
Two years ago, I applied via a recruiter, and made my position clear about my salary expectations.
It was a 30 minutes video call, followed by a test to design a system, which took me around 8 hours to finish (I used sequence diagrams and detailed documentation).
After that it was a meet and greet interview for 45 minutes and I asked for another 30 minutes to ask questions and understand the expectations.
I received an offer few days later, 30% less of what I asked for! I immediately told the recruiter I lost my interest even when they increased the offer to be close to what I have asked for.
I had this last year, came in about the same amount lower. I said no, expressed my annoyance that the recruiter had wasted my time. They came back at 15% less, I said no again. They then said “ok you’re too expensive” I replied with “no problem, I understand you have a budget limitation, I hope you find what you’re looking for soon”.
2 weeks later they come back 20% over what I asked for, had accepted another role by then and said “no, next time, just offer what’s asked”
They've been rude in a variety of ways. The big one though is simply ghosting me after 5+ rounds with no explanation. This has happened a variety of times and reaching out usually gets a non response. It's infuriating.
The others are just not being professional. Wearing pajamas or not paying attention or acting incredibly disinterested. It's really terrible.
I don't take that personally. If I don't hear anything within a period of time then I get they've moved on. There's no utility for them to be in contact anymore with me. It's unprofessional but I get why it occurs and don't feel slight.
You should feel upset. It’s basic courtesy to say “we don’t want you”. This is not dating it’s literally a massive corporation it costs them nothing to send a rejection email instead of leaving you in purgatory
Interviewing me then offering me a role without an accompanying offer of compensation. Especially after being evasive about comp at every prior step.
Your “competitive” salary turned out to be $65k, after I’d become gotten all excited about the role? Owch.
You want to hear about my market research on the local employment market before you pitch a number? No: that’s your job.
You want a salary range from me despite you having a 10x better grasp on the responsibilities of the role than I do, which also happens to be secret info in the negotiation because you never came up with a written job spec? Well. You are now at the back of my priority list of potential future employers I’m talking to.
If you decide you want to hire me then, I’m sorry to tell say, the next move is for
you to make me an offer. We can schedule another chat if you like but I’m just going to pitch why I’m the person for the job again, then wait for you to make me an offer.
No, you also don’t get to know anything about my current salary.
Unfortunately, in a job interview it is very likely that the person being rude is doing that in order to test how you respond. I've witnessed it during a group interview and I lost all respect for the interviewer, who was a group manager, especially after they explained in the review meeting why they did it.
Personally I think it is a lame tactic and that there are better ways to learn how a person adapts to a confusing social interaction.
Patronizing interviewers. Have not met any myself but worked with that kind of people. People that start off an interview with a 30 min lesson why the interviewer is better than the candidate.
The worst hiring though is when you are asked to take a code test and you can clearly see from the extent of the test that they want a POC for something. I was given a code test that was basically a complete MS paint. I did not do it and then the company complained about it. I did not even apply for the job in the first place. Some big companies…
Yeah, the most frustrating recruiting call I've ever had was someone like this. I was having a discussion with a recruiter about the company's software platform they had developed. Any time I said 'platform', the recruiter would interrupt me and say "no, it's an ecosystem". They were wrong anyway, the hiring company itself called it a "platform" on their own website.
It was one of the strangest and most dead-end discussions I've ever had.
one interviewer was watching their laptop and typing (slack?) and made almost no eye contact the entire time. it started with dead silence for a bit, then "what questions do you have for me". and that question was repeated 2 or 3 times after I finished with my reply, then it was just over.
another time, after the first 10 or so minutes of talking on the phone, the interviewer said "well I don't know if this department will open up, but you should try applying at company x or company y" and that was it. this was for a new department in the company - I assume they would not be interviewing if it was a long shot, and I was referred by an employee. pure waste of time.
a couple other similar stories I am forgetting at the moment, then the usual ghosting/late arrivals/condescension about education and work history.
> one interviewer was watching their laptop and typing (slack?) and made almost no eye contact the entire time. it started with dead silence for a bit, then "what questions do you have for me". and that question was repeated 2 or 3 times after I finished with my reply, then it was just over.
In this case it does sound like they weren't actually paying attention to you, but FWIW, when I interview people I have a checklist of questions[0] and take notes on my laptop so I would be typing and at least glancing at the screen. On the other hand, it's obvious that that's what I'm doing, not least because I tell candidates so.
[0] Or at least topics that I want to make sure we cover.
143 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 268 ms ] threadConsider it a good thing because you might have actually accepted a job there, and then you'd have wasted a ton of time and effort for nothing.
What I try to give is a three parter simple string parsing manipulation question where you build on each successive part as well as providing both valid and invalid inputs for them to use as test cases. It shows organizational skills and the ability to break down problems into reusable parts as well as the super basics of string parsing. I think being able to do that much under time pressure shows the learned qualities of a programmer since most will go with what's been ingrained into them by way of habit.
I can understand brain teasers being a poor measure of ability but I'm super on board for online whiteboarding when done properly. 45 minutes, no muss, no fuss. No 6 hours on a weekend to make something. No impenetrable question that requires tricks you don't need for day to day work that you can later look up.
I hate algo/whiteboarding myself, especially complex ones, but I think there's some value in doing some minimal in person fizz-buzzing, especially if you work for a very popular company. The amount of people who can talk through interviews all day long but can't code is too high not to at least attempt to filter them out.
What I do is give a very simple question, and make it clear that its not a "gotcha" question and that I just want to talk through with them how they'd solve it, to at least filter out the "deer in headlights" candidates. No one walked out of that to this day.
Writing a java sort function on a white board? Much less so.
They’re all bad options in some way, but at least takehomes simulate how most people actually approach a project, rather than sitting there trying to do something while someone stares at you. Some of us really, really hate that.
When I'm asking you a technical question, I'm looking at the code you're writing, not you. The camera is only on to make sure you're not lip synching or something. The layout of your code and the logic that went into it is more important than your mannerisms.
I refuse takehomes on principle because I've had enough bad experiences with poor reviewers so I'll never give one out.
Ideally? Not to assume my resume/education experience is a lie and to instead assume that I've done enough technical work by this point to merit respect that I don't need to prove some "technical merit" via any sort of whiteboarding exercise that is neither anything like day-to-day technical work nor it is it much more than time wasting busy work to give interviewers plenty of room for excuses on why they don't like people.
But, I'm in a minority opinion in general that I'd rather see the industry mature and if it needs to build a standardized test like the MCAT or the Bar Exam or PE certification to stop asking trivia questions in interviews it should just build a standardized test and stop wasting everyone's time.
Personally, I wouldn’t suffer, but I think as an industry we're unique in this way and it’s kind of overall maybe slightly better than not.
Whether or not that's true, is it really important? I guess it depends on your perspective. Do you think the industry exists to provide job opportunities, or to solve real business problems?
Admittedly it's not like a super fair comparison because we're still in the a very nascent phase of software as an industry, but I think as a concept the question still poses merit. Maybe when the industry matures more we'll finally establish a bar, but in the meanwhile I think most of the money people feel that there's just too much work to do for that to happen.
Personally, I don't really know what's the optimal way to do things. Mainly my point is that it's interesting that we even exist. Like, we are one of the only "professionals" who don't have any standards to adhere... and this is precisely why interviews are so hard in our field. Sometimes they're asinine, as has been discussed here.
(FWIW I try really hard to be a good interviewer and to give the candidate a pleasant experience and to design everything so they feel fairly judged and I get good signal)
I don't know if that is something that software could use, but it certainly is a known option, and might help. In some ways software already has bespoke versions of those career paths, but there's no standardization from company to company and that's part of what makes interviewing hard because even career paths mean different things to different companies.
But I’m not giving them because I think people are lying. I can tell if people are lying about their experience in the first interview. The assignment part of the interview is to assess the quality of their work. Some people do awesome work straight out of school, and some have been doing awful work for 20 years.
We do have standardized testing: certs. But they're of limited usefulness in determining someone's job performance.
Sure, a resume isn't about "job performance" but how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years?
I understand where you are coming from and appreciate it is a common attitude in this industry, I just think it is a wild attitude, and an attitude related directly to the immaturity of our industry that everyone assumes the labor market is inefficient and doesn't reflect "quality"/"performance".
No, I’m saying that resumes simply don’t convey quality of work. They convey the duration of work and who it was for.
Duration isn’t a proxy for quality. Beyond the first couple years of experience, I don’t think I’ve seen much of a reliable pattern between experience and ability.
I can’t really look at some random project at some random company on a resume and tell you whether participation in that project amounted to brilliant engineering work, or whether it was changing ‘if’ statements three times a week in a legacy system.
> how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years?
I’ve been on the wrong end of hiring mistakes where that was exactly the situation.
There are definitely certain types of jobs that are “known for being cushy” in this industry.
Although, that’s nothing unique to tech. People coast in tons of white-collar jobs.
I think the problem here is the company never knows if it is looking for a specific skillset or not, and "how specific" to hire. Then using that as a crutch to avoid asking hard questions of itself if it can hire-to-train.
Most specific skillsets can be trained with a broad enough education. That's what most other industries/career paths rely on. Software uses the excuse that technologies move "too quickly" to avoid hiring to train or hiring generalists that would be fine with a specific skillset if given the right guidance/time/budget.
> I would be willing to bet that you have at least one thing on your resume that is embellished ever so slightly.
I don't. Why would I?
This is exactly what I'm complaining about. As an industry we've taken a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality and interviews aren't about respect but presuming lies and always about "ferreting out" the liars. It's awful and just about no other industry works that way in hiring decisions.
I've had interviews find lies that a recruiter edited into my resume, but that's a problem with the industry's relationship with bad recruiters and doesn't seem a good reason to call me a liar, when I'm not the one doing that.
Unfortunately, I have interviewed many candidates who have excellent resume, relevant experience, but who can't write basic string manipulation code which does not even require any advanced algorithms or data structures.
I think a lot of it gets down to what are we actually testing for here?
Sure, which is why we have multiple interviews and not just one.
> or were too focused on trying to solve for "traps" in the interview they stumbled over basics
I disagree to an extent. Its not a "here is the problem, you have N minutes, go". I work with the candidate - guiding them, explaining, understanding their rationale.
> or had to do so much advanced string manipulation that got trapped in trying to re-simplify their concerns from real world practical work (forest) to "basic string manipulation" (trees).
I am talking about simple string manipulation which can be done with just loops.
> I think a lot of it gets down to what are we actually testing for here?
That they can code independently, think about the problem, reason about the potential edge cases and communicate their rationale. Its not a binary decision, but how they are overall.
You are testing that they can code independently by forcing them to code in a group setting? "Guiding them, explaining, understanding their rationale" is about the exact opposite of testing for "can they code independently". Not to mention all the usual issues that whiteboard "coding" resembles real world coding not at all.
Especially if you are just talking simple string manipulation which can be done with just loops; either you are asking the candidate to reinvent the wheel of a library function they use all the time and should never write by hand in a real world codebase or your example is contrived in other ways in which the real answer is way more complicated due to performance issues (because low level string manipulation likely is a performance issue).
This is exactly where it becomes a trap, too: in a real world application I'd need to evaluate any and every string manipulation written by hand to test it for performance issues and determine the appropriate string manipulation tools for the job. In C# today that includes knowing when to use a StringBuilder versus knowing a lot of gory details of Span<T> and String.Create and a deep rabbit hole of memory management issues (.NET strings are immutable, so this pretty much accounts for all real world string manipulation in .NET today that it is never "just" string manipulation). Other languages have related memory management concerns, but different dialects and mental overhead. Also, it's 2021 and no one in the real world should be doing any string manipulation at all without accounting for Unicode, so in a real world application you need to make sure you are using your platform's correct APIs for "rune" manipulation rather than raw codepoint manipulation for Unicode safety.
In a whiteboard exercise you are probably going to tell me "don't worry about that" or "just keep it simple", but that's the biggest "reasoning" behind potential edge cases and after a number of years of professional work I can't shut off that firehose of practical concerns and it will take me a while to get to the "simple exercise" because my brain has lots of in-grained habits at this point and you are asking for "coding insight" like the real world, but in no way like an actual practical programming issue and the real programming issues still get in the way because I "know too much" at this point to react well in any "simple" problem.
The other trap here is "soft-skills", again deeply contrary to "coding independently": while "coding" you want the candidate to express themselves out loud and communicate their rationale. While many of the pop psychology ideas of "right brain, left brain" are mostly wrong (or at least wildly over-generalized), the basic idea applies here well: you are asking candidates to light up two very different sections of their brain all at once. Maybe for someone far more used to pair programming that's a bit like walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time, but for someone used to "coding independently" (as you are asking to test) that's a lot more like those stupid pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time "tests". You can do it, it takes a lot more energy and conscious thought, and it doesn't "feel natural" for "coding independently" at all. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that not just incredibly draining but a migraine trigger and it is very hard for me not to end nearly every interview with a nasty migraine.
> think about the problem, reason about the potential edge cases
You'd test for these better with creative problem solving exercises. Everyone likes to make fun of those "silly Microsoft-style questions" like "describe all the functions of Vending machine to me like I've never used one" or...
The thing is they’re not. Sometimes we want to see code that runs and compiles. Sometimes people want to see how you think. Whiteboard interviews are designed to do the later, because coding is not thinking.
I think the whole whiteboard interview = bad phase of blog posts from thought leaders was half hot takes from people who didn’t like how they were evaluated in that dimension, and half actually companies trying to push products that they sell. I don’t however think the consensus among senior engineers ever really bought that. It was more nuanced, like a “yeah, it’s not the only thing we should do, but programming interviews with an IDE shouldn’t come at the permanent exclusion of whiteboard interviews altogether” sort of thing.
That’s exactly analogous to whiteboard interviews. You can feel however you want to feel, and no one will change your mind. The fact is, you never code on a whiteboard. You’re not testing ability.
I am not going to spend three hours of work, when I'd rather be doing something else, only to be fucking ghosted. (times by godknows how many companies.)
I got bought out by a FAANG and I am eternally grateful that I "only" had to do four interviews to keep my job. Rather than the real time coding horse shit.
A FAANG on the CV without preparing leetcode BS for months!
I had one of the guys I was managing in a startup get into the AI company that Google bought without leetcoding.
I was pretty jelly but still determined not to spend months on leetcoding, dealing with shitty big org politics, performance reviews and having to work from the office (it was still back in the days when people were free to work from the office). Without the cost of leetcoding I could probably tolerate it for a couple of years and resell myself as a Xers for the rest of my career. With leetcoding and the risk of failure, fuck that.
With that still to come, we as a company stopped working on the core business for two weeks and settled down for leetcode practice and mock interviews. We had the luxury of doing it all together and learning form each other in work hours. So it was a lot less stressful than it would have otherwise been.
In the UK it's illegal to buy a company and fire/rehire all the staff. The way they got round that was to say that if we didn't agree to waive our rights, we wouldn't get any money. The money we were offered as part of the share settlement was about half what we could expect if we went to court(ie 1/2 a years wage net). The main deal from the evil overlord was "join us and you'll be spaffed with cash"
turns out there are a lot of myths about being bought out, its nowhere near as glamorous as we've been lead to believe.
but yeah, I don't think I'd have ever really have applied, especially given the silly amount of prep one is supposed to do.
Was able to provide a working solution for all of them. One of the interviews I was unable to do the optimum solution, but discussed how I think it could be done better. No offer, heh.
I have been told that it's now mostly luck getting in. My lunch break person even told me that.
Using TDD takes longer during an interview, so I didn't get as far into the problem as what I think the interviewer was expecting. I assume people that didn't use TDD performed better because they were able to get farther in the problem.
I didn't get an offer. I'm not sure if it's because of the TDD issue, but I can't think of anything else that could have contributed to the outcome. I sent my feedback to the recruiter after I was notified I didn't get an offer, and I asked for any feedback, but never heard anything.
Conversely, my best interviews (and 1:1s) have been with people who are fully present.
I had this happen, i had his resume up on my screen for the interview and i was taking notes and suddenly i got a message that there was some big production issue i had to help with, so yeah i couldn't focus on the interview. I still feel bad about that
That seems like such an obvious thing to do I don’t think it needs stating; I’m surprised you even thought to bring it up.
Though I'd still prefer that to the ones that told me that my more than a decade of professional experience isn't useful/valid because my parts of the industry "chose the wrong programming languages". I particularly loved the hypocrisy of getting that criticism from a company trying to win more companies like the ones I've worked for to their Cloud platforms. It seemed pretty obvious why they were having difficulty winning some of them over to their platform if they absolutely just hated the languages they worked with.
Did a live coding and they said something along the lines of being one of the fastest to complete it and scheduled another call. So far so good.
Follow up call with some higher up on "culture". The guy seemed like a parody human, reminded me of PC Principal, 'out here crushin it bra on the daily', that type. Except he wasn't some young out of college bro, but some 40ish guy in a shirt and tie. He really spoke at me the whole time, I don't remember saying much. Maybe he saw my disdain, maybe I rolled my eyes, I don't remember.
About 20 mins after that call I got a rejection email. Very odd experience, but I assume I dodged a bullet.
If so you were expected to interrupt him.
Yeah, sounds like “not a culture fit”. I wouldn’t have been, either.
When I worked in an industrial office park, I could go out to my car to do a phone interview. When I was working downtown, where I didn't drive to work, there was pretty much nowhere to go that wouldn't involve some kind of background noise.
I just can't afford to take 4-5 days off each time someone thinks we might be a good match and needs a 30 minutes (which is always more). When I'm motivated to switch jobs I might talk to a few companies and all interactions are kind of short and in the middle of day. They seldom want to meet at 7 am or at 6 pm. Middle of the day? Sure, but we both understand it means finding a middle ground.
Sure feel sorry for the next-gen kids that will have to put up with 8-10 interviews (at a single company, for a single role) or more just to land a job.
Maybe we should blame how hard it is to fire people?
I was brought in, I mined the front of house staff. Its always good to see how they are feeling. Plus if you are nice to them, you get the good biscuits. They looked fine, until they started talking about the CEO/boss. They then looked stressed.
The interview started started a bit odd, the first person that interviewd me was nice, but looked at my CV and said: "well youre a linux guy like me, but they really want a windows guy" I thought it was a bit odd as the job spec was mostly linux hooked to AD (which was a dark art at the time, one I had mastered.)
Interviewer one went out and brought in the "head of engineering/systems/something".
I was treated to four sneering people. The "Header" started off with "oh you can't do windows can you?" I replied that I can hold my own(insert story about AD migration) This shut him up a bit, and made him more hostile. His acolytes (think crabbe and goyle plus two extras)
The interview reached a natural end. I was then told to go out and get lunch, and come back for more interviews. I leave my stuff there and go out for lunch, and come back at the ascribed time.
I walk through the door to where stuff was, I can here a stage whisper "OH my god, he's come back, whats he doing here? No you tell him to go."
Neeedless to say I did(Edit did not) get the job.
I wrote a message to the recruiter explaining what happened, and that I expect grownups to tell me to my fucking face that they've made a mistake.
- By refusing to disclose salary range and insisting I should go through the process before they can tell me. They don't get an interview.
- By trying paint their company as a startup despite over a billion dollars in investor money or, in one case, being publicly traded. Used to justify below market rate salary.
- By claiming role is fully remote and then slashing salary range at the very end of the process "if you want to work remotely".
- By offering salary range reduced by 40-70% if you are not in US. Doesn't matter that cost of living in Canada or western Europe is not lower. They are paying for the value I'm bringing, so my location should only matter for tax and timezone purposes.
As for situations you described only once I've had someone join the call while driving - 2nd interviewer. I made a joke about the purpose of the whole process for them to have one more employee not one less because he's driving distracted, suggested we should reschedule when everyone can safely fully focus on the interview. They apologized, rescheduled and then offered me salary of 45% of the lower end of the initial range, because while I was "more than qualified for the role they had a multiplier for Canada that applied here".
> You would need around 7,858.14$ (7,254.94Fr.) in Geneva to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 8,300.00$ in San Francisco, CA (assuming you rent in both cities).
Although other countries/cities in Europe are cheaper than this, you should know that Switzerland has extremely low income tax, compared to others.
It doesn't matter if they tell me what the salary range is or confirm my expectations are within their salary range for that role - I just want to know upfront before everyone involved wastes their time.
Agreed if I'm looking for a job. If companies are reaching out to me when I'm not looking it's up to them to show me there is some upside to jumping ship, other than default buzzword package. Stonewalling any attempts to confirm an agreement is even remotely possible is a dealbreaker for me in that situation.
When the interviewer demeans you by boasting about their company's/team's achievements while implying "why are you here?" (well, you've invited me, remember?)
[1] https://www.vay.ai/
anyone who ghosts after multiple interviews
I find it annoying when people start lecturing me about their hate of some tech.
I did some "open book" on site programing quiz, i looked up the syntax for else if in python and the guy goes "hmm do you really know python?" i switch between like 3 languages, so yeah ill double check syntax...
i need to think of more, i hate interviews. It feels like the smaller the company the worse the interview experience is. funny enough i think facebook was the most pleasant interview i did
It was a 30 minutes video call, followed by a test to design a system, which took me around 8 hours to finish (I used sequence diagrams and detailed documentation).
After that it was a meet and greet interview for 45 minutes and I asked for another 30 minutes to ask questions and understand the expectations.
I received an offer few days later, 30% less of what I asked for! I immediately told the recruiter I lost my interest even when they increased the offer to be close to what I have asked for.
2 weeks later they come back 20% over what I asked for, had accepted another role by then and said “no, next time, just offer what’s asked”
The others are just not being professional. Wearing pajamas or not paying attention or acting incredibly disinterested. It's really terrible.
Name & shame
Microsoft but they eventually got back to me 2 months later. Still disrespectful in my opinion
Hashicorp
Your “competitive” salary turned out to be $65k, after I’d become gotten all excited about the role? Owch.
You want to hear about my market research on the local employment market before you pitch a number? No: that’s your job.
You want a salary range from me despite you having a 10x better grasp on the responsibilities of the role than I do, which also happens to be secret info in the negotiation because you never came up with a written job spec? Well. You are now at the back of my priority list of potential future employers I’m talking to.
If you decide you want to hire me then, I’m sorry to tell say, the next move is for you to make me an offer. We can schedule another chat if you like but I’m just going to pitch why I’m the person for the job again, then wait for you to make me an offer.
No, you also don’t get to know anything about my current salary.
Personally I think it is a lame tactic and that there are better ways to learn how a person adapts to a confusing social interaction.
See 'stress interview'. [0][1][2] (It's discouraging to see that walk out didn't make the cut for the advice list of either [0] or [1].)
> Personally I think it is a lame tactic and that there are better ways to learn how a person adapts to a confusing social interaction.
One could argue this discriminates against applicants with social disabilities.
[0] https://www.interview-skills.co.uk/free-information/intervie...
[1] https://www.topinterview.co.uk/interview-advice/what-is-a-st...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190201-the-stress-int...
The worst hiring though is when you are asked to take a code test and you can clearly see from the extent of the test that they want a POC for something. I was given a code test that was basically a complete MS paint. I did not do it and then the company complained about it. I did not even apply for the job in the first place. Some big companies…
It was one of the strangest and most dead-end discussions I've ever had.
one interviewer was watching their laptop and typing (slack?) and made almost no eye contact the entire time. it started with dead silence for a bit, then "what questions do you have for me". and that question was repeated 2 or 3 times after I finished with my reply, then it was just over.
another time, after the first 10 or so minutes of talking on the phone, the interviewer said "well I don't know if this department will open up, but you should try applying at company x or company y" and that was it. this was for a new department in the company - I assume they would not be interviewing if it was a long shot, and I was referred by an employee. pure waste of time.
a couple other similar stories I am forgetting at the moment, then the usual ghosting/late arrivals/condescension about education and work history.
In this case it does sound like they weren't actually paying attention to you, but FWIW, when I interview people I have a checklist of questions[0] and take notes on my laptop so I would be typing and at least glancing at the screen. On the other hand, it's obvious that that's what I'm doing, not least because I tell candidates so.
[0] Or at least topics that I want to make sure we cover.