I’m approaching 30 years in software development, and I don’t remember having a “technical” interview until this week…. in which I had two.

Both were with large, well-known companies. But the nature and outcome of the two were quite different. In one, the interviewer just dumped some code on the screen that had been clumsily obfuscated, and its intent and strategy rendered indecipherable.

In the second, I was asked to provide code that did something, and then add an additional feature to it on demand. This is much more in line with what I expected, and to me more valid. And the whole interview was far more satisfying and invigorating.

The first interview was so disappointingly “douchey Leetcode” that I dreaded all that would follow. It created conflicting feelings of, “I’m kind of over this type of work anyway; this may be a beneficial tipping point” vs. “I don’t want to wuss out and run away from uncomfortable experiences.”

Now that I’ve had two opposing experiences in technical interviews, I feel more confident in judging their validity and my role in their outcomes… and calling out ones that are disrespectful.

Agreed that the second seems more reasonable!

It matters a lot if the interviewer is not quizzing you on trivia or waiting for you to trip and fall.

> I feel more confident in judging their validity and my role in their outcomes… and calling out ones that are disrespectful.

I wish we could all do that! One overlooked aspect of this humiliating process is that it saps your confidence. I've seen it happen. After a bunch of failed interviews, the person starts feeling it's their fault and that they cannot possibly be good, and this informs their attitude for the next challenge, which they fail, and so on.

> One overlooked aspect of this humiliating process is that it saps your confidence.

This has been me on occasion during the last couple months of searching. I've been worried that my work history was too disjointed to tell a coherent story. Or that I'm not actually as skilled as I thought. Or that some skills have atrophied. Or they just aren't in demand anymore.

I brought it up to a career coach (part of my severance package) and she seemed to think I was overqualified for a couple of them. I'm not sure that's true, and suspect she doesn't grok tech enough to make that assessment. But even if she's right, hell, something straightforward where I'm "overqualified" sounds kind of nice.

Exactly. And then you wonder if you're just making excuses and trying to blame the test.

But in the end you have to consider your past work, things you've built, and the value you've added to things. And, most of all, positive feedback you've received from colleagues or customers. I reflect on the fact that my colleagues have worked in my code, built entire new features of their own on top of it, and then vouched for me in job referrals that have their name on them. That's the most valuable confidence pill in your arsenal.

The interview is a two-way interview. You can also identify crappy companies you don't want to work for by crappy interview processes.

Haven't done any interviews but did talk to a recruiter who was asking upfront if I was okay with a 6 day work week. Just a single data point, but I would assume employers are also trying to leverage the situation to get more out of their employees.

Which professions hire like this? I can’t think of any.

Pretty much none that I'm aware of.

My brother is an actual engineer. They get hired on past relevant experience and simple interview. Of course he also needs the relevant credentials and professional membership so there is that... you can't keep those if you mess up and you won't get recommendations if you are an ahole.

A lot of my friends are doctors. If you are qualified and want the position it's yours. Demand > supply very much so.

Hospitality is as cut-throat as always, everyone is welcome to try - it's up to you to survive. Though I guess the first few trial shifts are the most similar to programming in that way but it's still very much "can you do the job" not "can you remember this esoteric thing you might have done once in college but otherwise not touched in a decade".

So yeah. Programming stands alone in this sort of gauntlet hiring system in my experience. Other fields are happy to take past experience and recommendations as they are instead of devising some sort of "test".

I would say outside of programming there is a bit more of the personality test sort of things though - especially big corporates, you could probably screw one up badly enough for HR to block you.

> A lot of my friends are doctors. If you are qualified and want the position it's yours. Demand > supply very much so.

Isn’t supply artificial constrained for doctors?

Yeah genuinely that reeks of someone who has never worked outside of tech. Job hiring sucks in a lot of fields but I would say the trades as a whole have this completely figured out and the process is nowhere near as obtuse as in tech.

Oh, I meant that we had it easy, not that the hiring process for other jobs looks similar.

Sorry, I worded it badly: I didn't mean other professions hire like this, only that we in software development lived in a microclimate where finding a decent job was easy. Now it's getting harder, I guess.

So too thorough is dystopic and depressing, not thorough enough is a garbage offer.

Yes, but if you are interpreting my comment in the best possible light it makes sense, right?

- On one extreme, you have employers who are abusive during interviews. They record you, treat you like a cheater, forbid you from alt-tabbing or anything that you would normally do while on the actual job, ask for trivia knowledge you'd normally google, and when reviewing take home challenges they are very strict. I assume this is because they have droves of candidates and can mistreat candidates till they find the perfect one?

- On the other extreme, you have garbage consultancy/software factory work. Low quality, outdated tech, low pay, and they'll hire anybody who can demonstrate minimal expertise since they aren't interested in quality work but in selling billable hours.

I expect what reasonable people want is a decent job which pays well, is not mind-numbingly boring and that challenges you, but also they don't want to be subjected to the humiliation of abusive interview processes that quiz on trivia and treat them like cheaters?

I'm seeing more and more of the first kind of process, sadly.

> ...forbid you from alt-tabbing or anything that you would normally do while on the actual job, ask for trivia knowledge you'd normally google...

I had to fill out a literal IQ test the other day. 15 minutes, for 50 questions, and a note that you probably won't finish them, and not to use calculator. I'm out of practice for arithmetic tricks _because I've been out of school for 20+ years_. What exactly is that supposed to test, especially under such time pressure? This was followed by a personality test (no time limit).

This is all before they even decide whether they even want to interview me.

> - On the other extreme, you have garbage consultancy/software factory work. Low quality, outdated tech, low pay, and they'll hire anybody who can demonstrate minimal expertise since they aren't interested in quality work but in selling billable hours.

I just had to pass on one of these. Not quite desperate enough to take it just yet. Time tracking software was already iffy. Having to interview again for each project was iffy. Basically, glorified contract work, but less stability. Oh, and they wanted me to screen record my tech assessment assignment.

What cinched it for me, though, was the Glassdoor reviews: they boast about their star rating on Glassdoor, but the CEO would passive-aggressively rip into negative reviews, including one that told a former employee they were wrong for having a bad experience.