It sure would be nice to live in a world where programming qualifications meant something, so I didn't have to spend 2.5 of those 5 hours demonstrating that I can do the programming equivalent of tying my shoe laces.
I sure wish it was just tying my shoe. More like "can you tie in a windsor knot?" Then later they say "sorry we wanted someone who can do a Gordian knot".
Oh, that’s a great analogy. Everyone can tie a windsor knot, but nearly the same amount of people will have forgotten how to do it every time they actually need to.
> It sure would be nice to live in a world where programming qualifications meant something, so I didn't have to spend 2.5 of those 5 hours demonstrating that I can do the programming equivalent of tying my shoe laces.
I’ve read so many resumes from candidates who appeared highly qualified and experienced, only to get them in an interview and discover that they can’t even write a for loop in the language they said they were an expert in.
It’s surprising the first time it happens. The 100th time you see it, you embrace the coding interview.
Unfortunate, but it’s how we have arrived at the status quo. A nontrivial number of applicants will charismatically lie through their teeth if they think they can get away with it.
Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where fizzbuzz wasn't necessary to filter for evidence of claimed qualifications (although, if fizzbuzz is taking half of a multi-hour experience, it's not being used correctly).
My point being, "programming qualifications" are just words anyone can put on a page.
There's already a way to validate claimed qualifications - ask to see their certificate and (if you're being particularly diligent) contact the school to verify it.
Nobody in the tech industry does this though. Maybe it's possible to graduate from college with a CS degree without being able to solve fizzbuzz? So you need to check they can program despite their qualifications? IDK though.
> ask to see their certificate and (if you're being particularly diligent) contact the school to verify it.
Certificates are ~useless in tech. I've encountered way too many candidates who have a bunch of certificates but don't actually understand anything they're supposedly certified in. They just memorized enough to pass the exam.
> Maybe it's possible to graduate from college with a CS degree without being able to solve fizzbuzz? So you need to check they can program despite their qualifications? IDK though.
Yes. It's astonishing how many CS grads simply don't understand programming.
sounds like the exams suck then, to be frank. No one wants to train and despite popular sentiment university is not a training center. So why isn't there some collective effort to make good exams and certifricates? Maybe ones with an active component to start (even my AP Comp Sci test required some Object Oriented coding). The big tech sort of settled on Leetcode, but clearly that doesn't required needed knowledge even within those big tech.
Honestly I think the real issue is non-technical recruiting/hr have gotten way too involved in filtering and selecting candidates, so dipshits or liars end up getting interviewed at all. When technical eng management are actively involved in looking at a candidate, I rarely see these terrible ones show up and waste time.
