Hi there, I've been in several whiteboard interviews and the reality is I don't do well in these kinds of interviews. Usually I take time to understand the problem, discuss options, caveats, but end up with less time for coding at which point I go into panic mode and the interview derails in terms of quality. Are there any companies that have alternative ways to measure candidates' skills to decide whether to make an offer or not? I've tanked two Google on-site interviews, one Amazon on-site interview, and many more phone screens (Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Microsoft).
Same here. Snap in NYC has a very interesting interview process. PM me if you want to know. There are many companies which do algo interview without actually making you write on a whiteboard. (Bloomberg comes to mind.) Startups often get very creative with the tech interview.
So you clearly seem to know what your problem is... and you are smart enough or you wouldn't be getting the invites to interview. So rather than finding lame companies that have easier interview processes.... how about you put on the effort to get better at the process you know they will use? Practice.. get a coach. you'll figure it out
He is not looking for lame companies. Nothing in his post suggests that. When it comes to tech interview, not all companies like to ape Google.
It is not about finding companies with an easier interview process but rather those that have a process that would let one shine and show the strengths and weaknesses. I am at the point that I want to focus on learning and improving the things that I feel passion for. That would be ideal: a selection process that lets you show that passion. Those are the best conversations.
For the kind of work I do (Gfx), I basically look for something on the candidates resume that I'd like them to explain to me. Rendering techniques are hard to BS through. Sometimes I even try to see if I can't learn about something from a candidate (as there tend to be a variety of techniques for a desired visual result). I can also ask about GPU architecture, and we can work through bits there. Basically, I try to treat it as a conversation with an engineer at a conference. We have some set of shared understanding, and it's interesting (to me) to find out about what my peers are working on. Both parties can usually determine if the other person is full of it or not. I just try to transfer that experience to an interview. I myself am terrible at whiteboard interviews, but as I've gone along, they make less and less sense for a rendering engineer...
I have the same approach, also doing very specialized work. If I give them a short piece of pseudocode to write I always exit the room to allow them time to think without pressure. I find it unfair and artificial if the interviewer wants to watch the candidate's every move or key press. If it doesn't happen in real life why exagerate it in the interview ? I find it much more relevant to learn about a candidate's past experience, the hows and whys and how they approach a problem than to see how fast he codes.
That is in line with what I am looking for. A conversation where peers talk about a technology, the challenges, the solutions. Where passion can shine. The traditional interview focuses heavily on testing the candidate in an artificial environment with made-up situations where everyone follows a script: -The candidate should ask questions, talk through the coding, clear ambiguity in a problem statement, come up with test cases... -The interview provides subtle hints, asks specific questions, attempts to make the candidate comfortable, keep probing... And then there's a 2-5 minute period at the end where the candidate may ask some questions that are not going to reveal much because the interviewer works in something unrelated. Not a real opportunity to have an actual conversation.
Lol. Same issue here