This… was a mistake on both you and the interviewer.
All interview questions - unless it’s impossible to twist your answer to fit this - is scoped to “… at work”. Nobody who asks “tell me about yourself” is asking you to talk about how you met your partner, how many cats you have, or that experience you had, that one time, at band camp. It would be redundant and awkward to literally say “… at work” at the end of every question. It’s totally 100% the intent of the interviewer.
This is interviewing 101 and unless this is your first ever interview I would find it odd, and stop you immediately and say “I meant, worst day at work”. They should’ve done that.
Unless they explicitly and unambiguously say “tell me about the day your mom and dog died in the same day when you found out you had cancer” they mean “tell me about your worst day _at work_.” And even if they ask about the time your dog died (they won’t), they are not asking you “tell me about the worst day you’ve had in your life”. They are asking “tell me about a time you experienced adversity and overcame it, exhibiting problem solving, resilience, and grit AT WORK. (Or - if you are operating in executive mode or you like to live dangerously - some non-work context that maps obviously and unambiguously to a work context).”
You failed the “knows how to interact with people in a professional setting” part of the interview. Or the “this person knows how to interview” part (which generally, but not always, correlates with experience and emotional maturity). Or the “read between the lines” part.
Yeah, inartfully asked questions - but also totally flubbed the answers.
Sorry, chalk it up to you had a bad interview or day or whatever, and never, ever forget the entire thing is scoped to “…. at work”.
I was also part of this sort of interview once. They specifically asked personal questions - parents stuff, relationship, etc. Definitely not work related. It was indeed a very strange and exhausting experience. I could've definetly refused to answer some of the questions or drop out of the interview altogether, but not sure why I haven't.
So yeah, this type of interview exists so I highly doubt the interviewer interviewing OP was asking about work stuff...
Which protected characteristic does "personal relationships" fall under? It's vague enough to mean almost anything you want it to be, and I struggle to imagine any sort of successful prosecution.
There’s a reason interviewers in the US won’t (or shouldn’t) even ask if the candidate has a spouse. If they ask something about that specifically, and the answer indicates some kind of protected status (a man says “my husband” or reveal which place of worship they got married in) and they then decline the candidate, the candidate could make the claim they were denied because they’re gay or practice whatever religion or something else.
Asking personal questions could be seen as a way to elicit information about a protected status and thus give a rejected candidate ammunition for a claim, whether warranted or not.
It’s best to just keep questions focused on the workplace.
I think people vastly overstate the amount of actual risk companies are taking when they engage is possibly illegal behavior, especially on this forum.
Likely true, and I’m sure many companies go unpunished despite engaging in it, but that doesn’t make it a good idea, and probably the kind of thing that could ruin a small business if they did get caught up in it.
Having been on the sidelines for spurious claims of this nature, these sorts of lawsuits are a huge risk: the cost of mounting a defense can easily bankrupt a small business, even if the claims turn out to be baseless.
Even in the case of complete innocence, it often becomes a he-said-she-said situation, and the outcome boils down to which side presents the best set of “facts”.
I use quotes there because my broader experience with the court system routinely shows that it does not need be burdened by the “truth” or “facts”. That is probably because the regular cast in those venues are literally trained and practiced liars.
I think it also depends on how big of a company. If someone (say perhaps, GP) mostly has experience in smaller companies, they might not have had the law of large numbers bring the lawsuit cudgel to bear on their company before.
But if you're at a large enough company, you're absolutely getting sued for this from time to time, so you'll have the "how to not get sued" training before you're allowed to interview.
(Edit: this isn't limited to interviews. There's many, many examples of things that large companies will not touch due to legal risk, that smaller companies will... either due to lack of knowledge on the legal risk (maybe no legal department even exists yet?) or intentionally as a gamble)
Never ever prompt someone to discuss personal relationships in an interview. The moment the conversation drifts into religion, family status, child count, sexuality or gender makeup, or any number of other things, you can easily run afoul of state or federal laws, or open yourself to discrimination lawsuits.
Women in a committed relationship can enter a medical situation that renders then unable to work for 6-9 months, + 2 - 3 years of leave afterwards. Men don't, that's just a month or two twice.
It is illegal, and in my book also immoral to deny such a candidate, but the other side of the coin is there.
Employer fishing to see if the person is married, which will require additional dependents on health insurance. Married is possibly more likely to have kids and take more time off for them or maternity/paternity leave.
Working in selection, I can say it’s more nuanced than that. Any measurement can be used as long as it is relevant to the business and related to performance. For example, you’re fine to reject people based on height if you’re hiring basketball players and being higher predicts scoring more points. Or even reject people based on gender (or other protected classes) if you can demonstrate that that specific group is absolutely necessary for you e.g. you want a counselor working with sexual trauma survivors and have evidence that matching patients to counselor on gender gives meaningfully better results for said patients.
The specific cases you mention and the finer point is how do you demonstrate the necessity of a measure? Is high general IQ absolutely necessary for SWEs? Or is it enough to have a high logical reasoning, but don’t need spatial? Do you really need high IQ or is it enough to have a lot of practical experience with hands on skills? Do you need higher IQ to do zero to one development vs code maintenance? The devil’s always in the details with these kinds of questions, and it’s definitely not a blanket “you can’t use anything”.
Yeah if you're willing to go into a decade-long court fight then maybe they'll allow you to use a test (where the burden of proof is on the employer to show the test is necessary, i.e. guilty until proven innocent). Or maybe you'll be liable for millions of dollars in compensation. And even something as seemingly reasonable as an IQ test for a knowledge work position is illegal.
IQ testing in white collar US employment is not unlawful and several household name companies openly perform general cognitive assessments; the companies that provide those tests have logo crawls just like every other product company. Griggs doesn't say what you think it says.
IQ testing is uncommon in US employment because it doesn't do a good job of selecting candidates, not because it's unlawful.
Legally, asking personal questions in an interview that are unrelated to the job is a huge minefield, ie, you could be opening the company to discrimination lawsuits. Huge red flag that the company isn't very professional.
The minefield is enormous but there are only like five or six mines in it and they're all really well marked. It's something adults navigate every day.
I don't actually care about personal details, I'm just looking for a topic you can use to explain your point of view for a few minutes.
Besides the point about separating personal and work life, there's the aspect of having the self-respect to maintain your own privacy.
You wouldn't answer deep personal questions from a random stranger on the street. Some questions might've been too invasive to answer were even some family and friends to ask them. Yet, it seems they felt like they should answer some interviewer they just met.
It's ultimately the responsibility of the person answering to select what and how much of themselves to share, depending on the relationship.
If the interviewer were to ask, "tell me your most embarrassing moment you had while having sex with someone", you wouldn't answer that. If they asked "tell me about the hardest day of your life" and the real, real answer was somehow that time you had that embarrassing moment while having sex with someone, you still wouldn't answer that. You would answer with what you'd be comfortable sharing with the random interviewer, if anything, else you can just decline the question.
The "embarrassing sex" is an exaggerated example. You can set your limits differently, in order to not feel
> completely emotionally drained
as the OP put it. Setting your limits such that your personal life is outside of what your comfortable sharing with the random interviewer would be appropriate.
GP comment on separating personal and work life said to imagine they tacked "... at work" at the end. You can also imagine "... that you're comfortable with sharing" as a more general rule.
Rejecting the question is actually how you pass. Open with "I leave everything private at home when at work hence my answer for the work position is: [here the answer but scoped and formulated to your work life and NOT to your private life]".
It’s absolutely not. Putting people in a vulnerable position and then pressing them for information you don’t need and should not ask for is a good way to demonstrate that you are an unethical or at best incompetent interviewer.
It might be a good way filter for candidates that have a high tolerance for being mistreated, though, if that’s the goal.
If an interviewer, who has the power to deny you a job unless your answers are satisfactory to them, is unprofessional enough to abuse that by pressing you for inappropriate personal details during the interview, then there actually is no correct answer.
You can't assume that person is going to act in good faith about anything else in that situation, so even refusing to take the bait is still ultimately a roulette wheel that can just as easily be labeled as "difficult" or "combative."
If it would be unprofessional to bring those things up freely, then it's actually more unprofessional to coerce people about them as a screening criteria -- whether that's coercing them into putting on a show of dancing around the issues, or coercing them into giving you honest answers.
Also a great way for candidates to filter out employers who play bizarre mind games and think personal trick questions are appropriate in an interview.
Literally he’s saying to behave inappropriately in a professional interview and see if the candidate plays along. Might as well see if you can get the candidate to offer a bribe or sexual favors for the job since we’re going all in on entrapment.
The opposite. Are you breaking the rule to leave your private stuff home just because the other side is or are you capable of keeping out of such sources of interpersonal conflicts, take over and redirect the discussion back to a professional level?
Of course it depends for what field and role you apply. For any leading role or customer contact point the capability to stay professional is essential. If you flip burgers at McDonald's then it's your right to be grumpy.
You are literally saying it’s a good idea to attempt to entrap potential employees by intentionally behaving the way you want them to not. It’s like pouring margaritas for you and the interviewee and then after they take a sip you say you don’t hire people who drink on the job.
This is unethical and it’s also a shitty filter because they people you want to hire (the ones why won’t talk personal stuff at work; or won’t drink on the job) are likely to write you off because they also don’t want to work with the guy who wants to drink margaritas and chat personal trauma at work.
I am literally saying that the role the person applied to was for a "founding engineer at a mental health startup".
This is a leading role(!) in the mental health(!!) industry. That should give some clues. They also announced that the follow-up interview as a "non traditional - a ~90 minute culture fit chat" dropping more hints.
Unfortunately he also "fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics".
I bet the exact wording was open enough to leave enough room to not "felt completely emotionally drained" afterwards.
I think the interviewer did him a favor. He is just not able to handle a leading role in the mental health industry in a way that would have been mental healthy for him.
At that point, I think I would have just started making things up or telling stories from other people I knew. Some random interviewer has literally no right to be asking me personal questions so I have no problem improvising some fun answers for them.
And even if, for the sake of argument, they legitimately did ask about your personal life instead of your work life... you normally wouldn't answer any of that. (In fact, it could very well mean the end of the interview, from the interviewee's side.)
That's vastly overstepping commonly accepted boundaries. Sure, some surface level smalltalk is normal and expected: "Any hobbies? Ah, you like hiking? Nice. Where do you like to hike? Oh, I did that, too. Might I suggest hiking there and there? I bet you'd like it. Anyway, moving on!" Common ground helps conversations flow.
But an employer asking about your personal relationships? Your needs, fears, and desires outside of any technical context? (My needs, fears, and desires from compiler toolchains are totally within scope.) Your traumata? That's a level of intrusiveness crossing into "rude" territory. They have no business of asking.
Some good points. Just a heads-up about something interesting I heard/read in training...
"Innocuous" icebreaker questions about hobbies, the weekend, or whatever, can be surprisingly problematic.
The questions and answers often inadvertently imply things about family status, religion, physical ability/disability, socioeconomic class, age, heritage, etc. that interviews are supposed to steer clear of.
For me, this was best illustrated by one of the https://www.linkedin.com/in/lornaerickson/ funny video skits, in which the interviewer character was using "innocuous icebreaker" chat aggressively to try to extract information all over the no-no list of things you aren't supposed to ask.
(Then the skit was funny again, after the fact, when I was in an interview with some barely-out-of-school founder, who was intentionally doing one of the things from the skit...)
> The questions and answers often inadvertently imply things about family status, religion, physical ability/disability, socioeconomic class, age, heritage, etc. that interviews are supposed to steer clear of.
I had a bizarre interview (at an extremely well-known company with an eccentric, controversial founder) where the recruiter asked me directly questions that "BigTech interview training" explicitly taught me to never ask or even walk close to. I was actually shocked and stammered out an awkward "Uhh, I'm pretty sure it's fraught with risk to even ask those things" non-answer, but she seemed genuinely surprised I wouldn't go into personal family details during a professional job interview. So, it seems not everyone has gotten the memo...
Good points. My hypothetical had the implicit assumption that the interviewer was acting in good faith when asking the weekend question. But that doesn't mean that interviewers necessarily are, of course.
Yeah, and even in good faith, the questions can be problematic.
Example: At the very start of the interview, candidate suddenly feels like they have to hide something about their religion, sexual orientation, or whatever, in how they answer. Or feels like their candid answer to the icebreaker was not received well.
Which is the opposite of what the interviewer intended, with an icebreaker, but their training didn't include how tricky casual icebreakers can be.
Plenty of time to talk about your life and hobbies once hired. If I’ve got 45 minutes to make a recommendation based on an evaluation, I don’t want to base any of that on your relationship/family status or pets, I certainly don’t want to give the impression that maybe I did that, and therefore, I don’t want to spend any time talking about it in the interview.
You can talk about it at work, after you're hired, like with your coworkers. The company can't ask you about a lot of things in an interview without exposing them to a significant amount of legal liability.
>Your traumata? That's a level of intrusiveness crossing into "rude" territory
OP didn't say that, he said "hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges" and then characterized it (his opinion) 'similar “trauma-baiting” questions'
asking a young person (I don't know that he was young, just saying) "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard question. Like on a college application, they expect you to answer it. Young people often don't have enough other experience to fall back on, and in a context in which you are expected to make yourself look good, the filter that is expected is to emphasize something that you were successful/resourceful at.
> "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard
I would suggest that this is a misremembering. As someone who's hosted thousands of interviews at companies big and small, all of the questions were scoped to professional work. Why? because when you ask things like "what was the hardest day in your life" you have a non-trivial chance of getting your interviewee tell you about the time they saw someone die, cleaned up a suicide attempt, or developed a new fear. That or you see someone make something up on the spot.
Its just not a useful question. If they answer honestly, then they are going to just going to remember that sad feeling of re-living trauma. If they don't answer honestly, they are more than likely going to be pissed off at the weird prying question.
These questions are emotionally expansive, you could have been getting on really well, shared a joke, had a great conversation. All of that will be blotted out by remembered pain.
The reason why people ask "can you tell me a time you overcame a big obstacle to achieve a business outcome" is threefold:
1) can you describe a blocker with the right amount if context
2) can you talk about improving things without insulting the people blocking you
3) can you think of ways to non-destructively overcome problems
Asking about when your pet died doesn't give you useful information
Morbid curiosity is a thing, even if professional setting. I only know one person who got this kinds of questions when they applied for forensic technician jobs, collecting remains of dead bodies and such.
> asking a young person (I don't know that he was young, just saying) "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard question
Is that true? Is that a cultural thing that I do not get? I am in the same boat as OP and consider these questions, if intended for no-work specific context, very inappropriate. The age is irrelevant. If you are interviewing a young applicant who is not expected to have work experience, ask them about sth in the school context instead of work context.
Young people can still have really bad experiences. Especially when you interview a big number of people, you are guaranteed to fall upon some pretty bad. It seems to me that the right expected way to answer such a question is to find some personal experience that is bad, but not _that bad_, and then try to flip it and show you persevered. It seems to me that you are selecting for people who are better in making up stories this way, than anything else, because there is very often no way to answer such a question in any truthful, factual manner.
Personally I would only give answers in a work related context, and make sure to be clear that this is the way I interpreted the question.
> asking a young person (I don't know that he was young, just saying) "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard question. Like on a college application, they expect you to answer it.
This is not a standard job interview question at all.
In fact if you tried asking this at any company with a legal or HR team, you'd get pulled out of interviewing people until they could train you appropriate job interview questions.
Keeping in mind the context of the original parent comment, yes it is 100% standard to ask about the "hardest day of your [working] life." I wouldn't ever put it like that, but asking about difficult challenges and how you overcame them is completely normal. The blog post reads to me as someone who is oblivious about the subtext of these questions.
When I ask that kind of question, I'm not asking you to share about a breakup, or death of a parent, or some other non-working issue, and I would think it very inappropriate for you to do so (thus, the quick rejection email). Instead, I'm asking about how you navigated losing all your code due to a backup issue or how you dealt with a difficult client or coworker or even some problem at work that threw you for a loop for weeks. That's the subtext of these questions, as the original commentator also made quite clear.
> Instead, I'm asking about how you navigated losing all your code due to a backup issue or how you dealt with a difficult client or coworker or even some problem at work that threw you for a loop for weeks.
Cubicle drama, hey?
Easy stuff. I've got a million+ SLOC behind me, no real cubicle stories worthy of note resulting, just had a few days at work clearing air strips at high altitude in Papua, had to work for a couple of weeks at gunpoint after one of our lovely clients detonated a nuclear device near enough our plane for the shock wave to affect the flight dynamics, nearly lost a whole boat to a fire under the kerosene filled float cables in the Spratly Islands region (after getting boarded constantly by various gunboats).
I think I didn't quite catch the layout here. I thought you were responding to KaiserPro above, so mea culpa. I agree that asking about one's personal life is not (or rarely is) appropriate. I think the blog author thought that was the case, but was mistaken.
Well, I have no idea what they actually specifically asked or didn't ask, because the article is light on details. So I just elaborated on what I consider crossing into unacceptable (which I believe is based on commonly shared conventions), and everyone can draw their own conclusions for any particular situation.
The job is described as "founding engineer at a mental health startup".
Generally getting called in for a "founding engineer" interview is code for a company that doesn't have money for a full salary but hopes they'll find someone willing to work for some token equity grant. These jobs usually come with amateur founders who aren't good at hiring. They could have really been pushing for life experiences, thinking they were doing some breaking-the-mold interview technique.
I do agree that every candidate should know to deliver answers in the context of a work interview. Even when the interviewer starts asking personal questions, you bring it back to something related to the job every time. Everything that comes out of your mouth should have a focus of showing how you'll work well at this company because you've worked well in the past at other companies.
The interviewers may have been shocked when someone didn't know this and actually unloaded their personal life struggles without a filter. I bet every other candidate they talked to had been giving interview-appropriate answers so they didn't realize how broken their questions were.
Chalk it up to a learning experience. I am certain you didn't miss out on any great opportunity with these amateurs. You will probably never see them again. We all have embarrassing work experiences at some point, but this is a good one to learn from and then promptly try to forget.
> This is interviewing 101 and unless this is your first ever interview I would find it odd, and stop you immediately and say “I meant, worst day at work”. They should’ve done that.
They don’t like it when I tell them about the day I performed CPR on a guy who jumped from the roof of the office building across the street.
>It would be redundant and awkward to literally say “… at work” at the end of every question. It’s totally 100% the intent of the interviewer.
you are stating your opinion as fact, and I don't think there is a basis beyond your opinion, you simply don't know.
I agree with you the interviewee could have handled the questions better to not be so revealing about himself, setting boundaries the interviewer was crossing, but it might have been precisely the intent of the mental health company interviewer to elicit responses like that to stay away from emotionally wounded people.
Another pro tip for interviews: even if they explicitly ask for something like "the worst day of your life, including personal circumstances not at work", just answer about work anyways. You don't have to answer every question as posed. Pretend the worst day of your life was at work and was work related. There are a lot of interview questions asked as bait. If someone asks "What is your greatest weakness?", you better not respond with your actual greatest weakness.
This is a common misunderstanding, and I don't want to sound like I'm blaming you for it, but it's based on a misconception of how the process works.
What interviewers are looking for is genuine introspection of the kind a high-quality hire would be expected to have. One answer I've given before, for example, is that I instinctively focus too deeply on technical requirements; I have to regularly prompt myself to answer "why does the customer care", or I get too deep into the details and end up with solutions that fail to serve their needs. The fact that I can recognize this weakness and take action to mitigate it is a positive signal.
What interviewers are looking to avoid is terrible answers that reveal underlying flaws or show you can't introspect at all. "I don't have any weaknesses", "I have trouble dealing with dumb people who give me bad ideas", "I get frustrated when people come to me with problems but don't explain what program I should write to solve them", etc.
Lame, humble-bragging answers are not the intent of the question and will not impress the interviewer, but probably won't prevent you from being hired if the interview otherwise went great. So maybe they're useful strategically if you're worried about giving a bad answer.
This 100%. An actual honest answer got me my first post-academia job. I had originally tried the "I'm introspective, so I actively work on any problems I find." When I could tell the interviewer was not impressed with that answer, I just fessed up. "I'm impatient." Not only was the honesty refreshing, but the interviewer shared the same problem. It was a nice bonding moment.
I don’t think “I focus too much on technical requirements” is a great weakness. That’s pretty much a standard pitfall most technical people would fit into. A greatest weakness is “I procrastinate a lot and wait til the last moment to get started on a project and often miss deadlines” or “I have a lot of conflict with teammates I disagree with”. Your answer is an example of exactly what I’m talking about, something that can be construed as a weakness but is actually kind of a strength because it shows you’re detail oriented.
Also, if you have a good interviewer, they will respect humility. Not all interviewers are good.
It should be but nothing guarantees you from meeting an interviewer that somehow misunderstands their role and then you will be in a situation when you need to choose what to do next: try to be open or resist. Once during an interview (for a software engineer position) I was asked if I had a family and when I replied that I didn't, I was asked why. You might be able to cut it down in an appropriate way but in a situation of stress (which a job interview represents of course) you might not.
> I was asked if I had a family and when I replied that I didn't, I was asked why.
In Blighty, that would surely have garnered a response along the lines of 'they were all lost in an industrial accident involving a steamroller and a packet of Lurpak'.
> Or the “this person knows how to interview” part (which generally, but not always, correlates with experience and emotional maturity).
I think that "generally..." is a little harsh.
The person might just not have worked in a stereotypical corporate drone environment before.
Or they might normally have been able to handle the corporate drone interview theatre, but are overextended by the context (e.g., laid off in this job market, which can easily be more stressful and existential than most actual work situations), and a bad interview hazing just yanks on that.
There's going to be more and more overstressed people showing up to tech job interviews, and people on the other side of the table will need empathy and understanding, if they're going to make good assessments despite the context.
Thank you; you’re right - context matters and now more than ever there are a ton of folks looking involuntarily. Grace is always needed, but now especially.
Absolutely not. I've been in an interview like this, and the interviewer specifically prompted me for for personal struggles, which I had to then fake having been way more affected over '"friends" asked me to take a photo so I'd be out of it' type incident than I actually was, just to satisfy them.
"... at work" expectation in an interview advertised as non-technical can be ableist screening anyways. Gonna poke that elephant since you're drapping it.
I was being interviewed by two owners of a small engineer firm. They asked, "tell us where you see yourself in 5 years". I rambled for ~30 seconds about marrying my girlfriend and other personal details. I still remember their faces; super awkward, and then they slowly clarified: "we meant professionally" hahaha. It ended up fine in the end, but I feel like there's probably some missing education on social culture of interviewing somewhere and you just have to have those experiences at some point to understand.
A candidate can be aware that these kinds of questions are supposed to have boundaries, but that's different from whether an interviewer understands or respects that. And if they don't, those people are also in a decision-making capacity that doesn't often empower you to just say "no."
Even when those things are scoped to "...at work," there are still answers that happen at work that are equally inappropriate to go digging for. "Tell me about a time you experienced adversity," for instance, could turn up health or family details that people might have juggled with their jobs -- things that you aren't actually supposed be considering as a factor in these decisions.
I also don't know, when someone is spending 90min screening you for "culture fit," that you can assume they're asking you for things that are strictly related to the job. They should be, but that's different from whether that's always a realistic presumption you can make.
What about when they ask you to prepare something that is definitely worded as you should talk 5min about a random non-tech (so kinda explicitly non-work) topic (with some examples like poems and songs iirc) and then they are completely weirded out when you talk about a hobby?
But it was also part of the worst interview I have ever had and these misguided 5 minutes for a weird intro were on the low end of the wtf scale.
From the way this is written, it's clear that the interview was not about "at work". If it was the interview would have stopped OP to say it after the first question, which obviously didn't happen.
I think this is a very cultural thing. When I interview candidates at my current job, we are interested in hearing about their life outside of work, since we want to know how we can best collaborate
If they have to pick up their kids in the afternoon, then it's probably better that they work closer with the other parents than of they're late risers who prefer coming to the office at 10
If the interviewer was fishing around for information for when I start work or if I have kids, the only thing that'd come to mind is whether they're trying to frame me as a slacker to disqualify me from the interview process.
I think it is. My hunch is that in most EU countries the labor laws are good enough that, in general, it just doesn't become a problem.
I don't even remember (been a while since I did lots of interviews) if you're allowed or not allowed to ask any of the aforementioned things but I can tell you from experience that about half the candidates would mention their partner and/or kids anyway, because it just is usually not a problem. But it's not such standard fare that someone not mentioning would raise a flag either. I guess most of us just don't think about it.
Also, tech is a bit different and I am not that old - but in Germany you could see a ton of personal details absolutely no one is interested in on CVs, but it's getting better. (What your parents do for work, if you are married, what name you had before marrying, if you have a driver's license for a desk job, what primary school you went to, etc.pp)
An employer making career-affecting decisions for their employees based on whether they have kids or not sounds like a great way to get sued.
That said, I have been asked if I had kids, in an interview. Later in my career, when I was trained to perform interviews, I was explicitly told to NEEEEEVER ask that. And if the candidate volunteers it, to basically pretend you didn't hear it.
What if the team they're interviewing for doesn't has any parents. I think probably it is fine to ask about their life/interests outside of work. But if the interviewee isn't comfortable answering those it is better not to push
"The follow-up, they described over email, would be a bit non traditional - a ~90 minute culture fit chat"
"I fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics, but they were, in fact, non-technical"
"This person gave the impression that it was a safe space to share"
I mean yes, the correct way would have been to politely decline to answer - but it very much reads as the intention of the interviewer was to get into all the personal stuff, to better evaluate - and sueing them possibly the right move.
Or at uni, at work-likes (volunteering, toastmasters etc.). It has to be in the pursuit of a commercial-like goal really. But yeah avoid friends, family, travel, pets...
I'm prepared to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. We weren't there and maybe they really were asking what the hardest day of their life was. Your take is the author is completely incapable of basic communication, essentially.
If you're interviewing, you get that kind of mismatched response and don't jump in to clarify the scope of the question, I'm not sure that says much about the culture you're supposed to fit into.
I’m inclined to believe that you are being too charitable to the interviewers. This is an early stage mental health startup. They totally could have been asking very personal questions. I believe this used to be standard when interviewing psychoanalysts. They could have stopped the author at any time too. That would be the most natural thing. I’m inclined to believe that it was a clown show and they conducted borderline abusive interviews. Shame on them. But also, beware early stage startups. It’s a real roll of the dice and the dice are weighted against you.
> never, ever forget the entire thing is scoped to “…. at work”
I think the mental health startup part and the wide scope of the questions (hardest day in life, not hardest day in career) made it clear that this meant what it said.
You're so right, i prefer my colleagues perfectly mentally healthy, can't have these issues around!
.... why can we never find hires?
I think people (especially HR) need to realize we all pretend to be mentally sounds. These issues make us human, and if you are trying to filter by this, you'll end up with maskers as colleagues.
I always wanted to tell the story of my weirdest interview. It's bad in a different way from OP's. This was for a "Machine Learning Engineer" contractor position.
- Hi, I'm gobdovan. How are you? says I.
The interviewer doesn't bite:
- How many prompting techniques do you know? (ok?..)
After a couple confused seconds, I respond with 2-3 techniques and ask if I should explain them, but the interview engine is already running at full speed:
- What is PEFT? How many PEFT techniques do you know?
I say I know LoRA and start to explain it, but the interview had no patience for answers longer than their acronyms. Before I knew it, I heard frantic clicking.
- He starts sharing his screen while I am still talking about LoRA in the background. Puts up an empty car from Google Images and commands: "Model the relationships between cars and people positioned inside the cars over time."
Uncertain of how to satisfy the inquiry, I start foolishly questioning what the task is supposed to be: vision? simulation? dataset labeling? self-driving cars?
But the interviewer doesn't budge. Doesn't give a specific task or context. Simply ignores the questions and stoically refuses to elaborate. The stars speak to me, and I guess he wants a relational mapping of some kind. Turns out I am right. This was supposed to test basic SQL table modeling.
At this point, I decide I'd sit through the interview just so I can collect all the questions. I am not disappointed:
- How many agentic frameworks do you know?
- What is the name of OpenAI's embedding model, and how many dimensions does it have?
- Then, the last ordeal lands: interviewer takes out a piece of cardboard that has "context engineering" written on it and asks: "What does this tell you?". His camera is unfocused, I ask if he could read what it says. Instead he repeats: "What does this tell you? What does this tell you? What does this tell you?".
I ask if he is the ML team lead. Turns out this absolute Chad is a mobile dev the client asked to interview candidates for the MLE role.
I've had an interview like this in the past. At the time, I chalked it up to a power trip and the indignant behavior that comes along with it, as it is especially embedded in the culture of the country that I'm based out of.
Having said that, talking to a relative, I found out that this style of "interviewing" is often done when they already have someone for the position, but need to show (for compliance reasons, or otherwise) that they tried finding candidates, and only their preferred one qualified.
I had a really weird power-trip interview once, and it was the CEO who was joined by a contractor who was ostensibly the technical lead for the project. There was nobody in engineering who worked full-time on the job, everybody was contracted. I was also going in as a contractor so I was aware that the interview would be a bit lighter on process as a result.
The questioning very quickly veered away from technical stuff and into stuff like, "where do you stand spiritually?" and other questions probing into whatever bizarre cosmic insights I could pull out of my ass at the time. He was the really intense kind of boss who wants to make sure you know of it with the hard back/shoulder slaps and micromanagement, and I could see his office from the boardroom which basically had an array of monitors all wired up to CCTV so he could watch (and hear) people from the comfort of his desk.
If any of that wasn't a red flag, getting hired literally 5 minutes after leaving the office was probably the biggest. I lasted about 6 months and even trying to leave was an ordeal.
> I lasted about 6 months and even trying to leave was an ordeal.
Like finding your next gig or just not showing up ever again? Because I've worked at a place where someone came in, went to lunch, and they never saw them ever again.
In general as companies decided to treat people like fungible cogs while selling "we're are family" story, it should be expected people will start treating companies like the faceless and soulless entities they really are. When people are laid off and escorted out not even allowed to say goodbye to their coworkers, employees should be just be walking out and doing exactly the same thing to those companies.
I got a gig as a contractor for a well known company. They were hiring and he told his recruiter to get him in. After several conversations trying to tell him not to come in and telling him what a clown show it was, he still managed to get hired.
Same thing. Came in, continually had to ask me how to do stuff, and I kept telling him, "See man, I told you this place is a clown show!". He did the same thing. Left his laptop, "Going to lunch, be back in an hour."
The most shocking part of this story is the part where you took the job. Not trying to throw shade, just the truth! What on earth was going on that made this your best option?
> Having said that, talking to a relative, I found out that this style of "interviewing" is often done when they already have someone for the position, but need to show (for compliance reasons, or otherwise) that they tried finding candidates, and only their preferred one qualified.
Or they only want candidates from a specific country to apply which is seemingly the case. I've heard from very talented and capable developers that they're getting auto-rejected once the interview reaches someone from a very specific country, no matter how good they did prior. I've also been personally told by people I know wouldn't BS me, that had my name sounded like I was from a particular country HR would have contacted me for an interview, but because I'm none of the countries some companies seem to only hire from, I get ignored. There's a problem with tech hiring and nobody wants to talk about it because most people are unaware.
The funny thing is I am considered a minority, but apparently not the “right kind” of minority. I think outside of being accused of racism I suspect some people anticipate HR level retaliation as well.
> I chalked it up to a power trip and the indignant behavior that comes along with it, as it is especially embedded in the culture of the country that I'm based out of.
That's a very globally-conscious way to refer to the USA!
> I ask if he is the ML team lead. Turns out this absolute Chad is a mobile dev the client asked to interview candidates for the MLE role.
Some times I run into companies like this: The people you talk to are so visibly inexperienced that you can't comprehend how the company functions, let alone makes money.
Some times it's a zombie company. They received funding or got a windfall from some early business moves, hired a ton of people, and now they're floating through the industry transferring money from customers to salaries as long as they can while their customers slowly leave for better options.
Some times it's a company with horrible management skills. They promote people who play the game instead of doing the work. The person in charge of the ML initiative only wanted to say that they hired MLE people for a new ML initiative for their resume. They grabbed someone who wouldn't complain or talk back and gave them the job of interviewing MLE engineers. That person ChatGPT-ed some questions and ran through a list in each interview, knowing their job was to go through the motions. The interview filters out everyone who would hate that environment, selecting for more people who know that the name of the game is going through the motions and pretending to do work while avoiding getting fired.
I've had very few bad interviews, I've had very few interviews that didn't lead to offers, but I've declined a few. One was semi-recent and it was in in-person in-office interview but the CEO joined remotely. We chatted for a few minutes, then the COO came into the room and we began the interview. The CEO asked one question in the beginning, then the COO asked all the questions. The CEO sat on the screen like a lump. I felt weird, and asked him directly a few times if he had questions, he'd shake his head and gesture to the COO.
Later I got a call from the recruited saying the CEO was unhappy, that he felt "he couldn't get a word in edgewise" but he was willing to "give the interview another chance." I said I was sorry to hear that, and that if the CEO didn't feel he could speak up freely in a 3 person meeting then I wasn't the right fit for that environment.
The COO called me later, the truth was that everything I had said about future planning aligned with their previous CIO who had left after long disagreements with the CEO but that the board liked the plans and my resume. I said no thanks, that the CEO isn't someone I want to work with. If everyone has to constantly cater to the CEO and make sure he feels included, that's not a workplace, that's a kindergarten.
Why didn't you answer, that it tells you that his camera is unfocused?
I don't understand how people tolerate this for so long, I'd start trolling the guy after his third question. If he wants to be rude, then I'd retaliate and make sure I have a laugh while he is wasting his time.
Hard to claim the moral high ground if you do eye for an eye. Always be nicer than the other side.
Even for practical reasons. If they think you are a prick, the blast radius can be substantially wider than this specific interview. And for what? The lulz?
I'm not saying to accept rude behavior, but one can leave such situations without being rude back or making a scene.
> Hard to claim the moral high ground if you do eye for an eye.
I do not claim the moral high ground. My moral is more flexible, than just "an eye for an eye" or "be nicer than the other side". I can do any of that depending on a situation. I'm starting any communication with the latter, it is a consequence of my upbringing, but if it doesn't work I may do anything. I want to note, I know that "be nicer than the other side" works oftentimes, people are entering into a communication in some emotional state and with some expectations, and these things can change during the communication. So I let my upbringing to try it first not just because of upbringing, but because I know the value of it.
> one can leave such situations without being rude back or making a scene.
One can. And I can. However there are situations when I just don't want to. A series of interviews that took my time just to end with the rudeness, so I just wasted my time is one of these situations. If they wanted to hire pushovers they could write it upfront in the requirements for applicants, I wouldn't bother them.
Agreed. Wasting applicants time should have consequences. I can play along for a little bit to appease people who are intentionally testing how I handle a difficult situation but I am not going to allow an extended waste of time to occur and that's something I want to communicate to potential employers as well
> Wasting applicants time should have consequences.
The consequence is that they don't get to enjoy your competence as an employee nor that of others who don't feel treated well, with implications for their future strength in the market. That's a much stronger consequence that being rude for a moment to somebody who doesn't care anyway.
the consequences are that they dont get to be in charge of the time anymore and i stop entertaining the interview game. its not about "showing them" or giving them some sort of punishment, it would be about me relaxing into behavior I want do regardless of them. Which for me would likely be a brief statement that they are losing me as a general professional courtesy and then hanging up on them because I almost certainly have better things to be doing with my time
but having already blocked the time off it's also completely reasonable to take 5 or 10 minutes to farm them for some content for my personal life like the other commentator stated, more or less.
it's not a calculated maneuver centered around them. The purpose of stating that consequences exist is because there are people out there who genuinely believe you have to be a monkey and jump through all the hoops of whatever any employer asks and would condemn someone for trolling a blatant tie waster for 10 minutes. My intent with this public discourse is to give the trolling a pass, not uplift it as some sort of standard of justice
It's easy to be nice in the beginning or when the other side is nice. Point is to be nice even if the other side is rude or wants conflict. In a sense you are giving in to their game if you are rude back. What really hits them is if their counterpart can't be bothered to be rude back.
I had an experience like this. I showed up and was handed a 50 question pen-and-paper exam on C# trivia, like the result of cursed operator precedence chains. I am not a C# programmer.
No small talk, no discussion of the role, no discussion of my experience or interest in the position. I kept trying to decline and open up a more conceptual conversation on relative importance of things in software, but they really cared about grading my work.
Easily 2 out of 5 interviews I've taken expose spectacular miscommunications between HR / management and future coworkers.
" but the interview engine is already running at full speed:"
I dont know if this is a recent thing, but I had a similar thing where an interviewer was racing forward, and would only accept the answers he had in mind.
In Python, he asked me how to search for substring. I was thinking but he started hurrying me. So I said regex and started writing a regex.
"No, there is an inbuilt method"
I couldnt remember the method. He asked me to google it, but there are dozens of string methods.
"I could use a regex?" I said and tried to show him how.
He ended the call, and 5 min later the agent called me to say my Python was sun-standard so they wouldnt be going forward.
This guy was a permanent employee and supposedly an expert
Commenting just to go against the other two answers. I think it's fine to not remember things, no matter the apparent simplicity.
Quite surprised by others finding this as a... Surprise? I get there is people who never experience this, but they also not know anyone personally to whom this would happen?
I’d call this an understandable mistake on the part of the interviewer. “in” is a pretty commonly used operator. But it is also a bit unusual/trivial, in the sense that most languages would have a method or a function instead.
It’s the sort of thing where if you’ve written, like, any Python at all, it’ll be somewhere in the back of your head. It’d surface immediately on the job. But if you’d been using any other language earlier that day, it might not pop up reflexively, or in interview-stress mode.
It’s essentially trivia, and over-indexing on trivia is a mistake. But if they were a Python writer every day, I could see why they’d incorrectly expect everybody to have “in” in their l1 cache.
I don't understand how you jumped to the membership test instead of literally the .find() method on a string?
The interviewer is not asking to solve a problem here, they're asking for a simple ability to follow instructions, hence the offer to use Google to find the correct answer.
You could make a very solid case for using "in" (it is 2-4x faster), but only after you've solved the task at hand, this is what is expected in interviews. Not knowing the interview meta makes an average Joe basically unhireable in this market.
No worries. My point is, if you get asked questions that seem simple to the point where you feel they're asking if "water is wet", then you need to keep your own thinking process extremely simple in response.
The reason is the intent behind their question, which they don't vocalize.
This question means we are dealing with an extremely broad hiring funnel designed to fail people who can't FizzBuzz and need to keep answers at MVP level.
In other words, if you are asked to put out a fire use a bucket of sand, not a state-of-the-art fire extinguisher.
The "in" operator is not unusual or trivia, it's something people who code in python use all the time! Python does have a function (or more accurately a method), it's called __contains__ and it's invoked by "in". I would expect a python developer to be able to comment on whether python uses a fastsearch algorithm or not, they should be able to comment on BM and H algorithms.
Maybe this was a very junior position, but I'm with the interviewer here. Using regex would be very questionable - and a solid case of 1171.
A regexp basically comes with a compiler. Who knows what sort of optimisations they've built in under the hood. It wouldn't be surprising if there was a special fast-path for efficiently searching for a substring; that'd be effective in practice.
But more importantly it is hugely context sensitive on how often the function is going to be called and what IO needs to happen around it to decide if speed matters at all.
Using a regex as a first attempt is entirely reasonable. Especially in an interview about Python. If we care about efficiently doing substring matching Python isn't the language of choice. If a programmer just wants to remember how regex work and get on with their day they'll do fine at handling string problems.
Questions like "how would you search for a substring?" are so incredibly dependent on what you're doing on a day-to-day basis, and what you're doing with the data once you've split it. Just because .split(...) is in all the tutorials doesn't mean the codebase you've worked on for the last 5 years actually uses that specific call with any regularity, and it may well be the case that your codebase does use regexs more often (maybe for query-portability purposes).
I write bare metal firmware, primarily in C, and I've had to make it a point to explain, in most every interview I do, that I've only ever used malloc(...) in tutorials. "In my world, malloc is a 4-letter word". So while I know what it does, and how it works, I actually have to google its usage, and I'm not as keyed into its pitfalls, because every system I've ever worked on could not afford the risks associated with dynamic memory allocation.
All of this to say, bad interviewers go looking for a specific answer, good interviewers go looking for good process. All of the jobs I've held are ones that accepted that I was rusty on this or that specific call, but could think about the system holistically.
It's simple, unless you're given a specific broader context (like we have an enterprise customer data pruning system that needs to handle a broad range of corner cases) then you must not resort to overengineering this early in an interview.
if "needle" in haystack:
print ('haystack.__contains__("needle")')
Is probably the obvious/canonical answer to the question of trying to find a substring.
So obvious that -to be fair- I blanked for a moment too. But 'in' is an operator, not a method (even though it calls __contains__ under the hood) . The question might have been slightly malformed?
"Return the lowest index in the string where substring sub is found within the slice s[start:end]. Optional arguments start and end are interpreted as in slice notation. Return -1 if sub is not found."
Your instinct to resort to "in" is correc,t as it's generally slower than the "in" membership test, but the interviewer has even allowed the use of Google. Blanking out after that is really bad.
Step 2: Parse the output with your eyes. The method is literally called "find".
This one-trick pony failure mode could perhaps have been fine for a guy who did Java and nothing but Java for 10 years, but you are supposedly the person who runs "pythonforengineers" website...
What about 'in'? index()? There are at least 3 canonical methods for basic string searches, and 8 if your include the more specialized forms (all of which are considered solutions).
Please refrain from personal attacks here. Save that for less reputable forums.
He was being rude, but I'm equally baffled by your description. It was very weird that you couldn't figure out which method is to search for substring when you have access to google search.
And it was triply weird that when he already said he wanted the non-regex way and you insisted on that.
I think there's zero excuse to be rude to candidates, and the 101 of interviewing is to make it as comfortable as possible for the candidate and not hurrying them up when they are thinking (which wouldn't rememble real work anyway, those aren't the typical time pressures one usually finds on the job... usually). You want them to succeed and not trip up; if anything because it means no more conducting interviews for you! Also, basic human decency.
That said, really... finding a trivial python function using google search, that is a real life work skill. It's 100% real and not made up for interviews. I guess these days one would ask the LLM, too. The only artificial thing was the time pressure which, granted, complicates things needlessly, but other than that, the fact the candidate didn't come up with an answer is still a red flag. (I wouldn't disqualify them just for this, but maybe there were other red flags already?).
Personally, I think the fact even after being asked to google another solution they still insist on the first solution came to their mind is the second biggest red flag.
(The biggest one is that they still think there is nothing wrong about this and decide to victimize themselves on HN.)
I've never understood this extremely common complaint. First of all if one can't remember the substring method in the language they are interviewing for, that's a red flag; extremely common standard lib functions should not be a subject for googling. But let's account for nervousness, okay. If that same candidate can't find the method by googling, it's a no-hire from me, easily.
"python find substring" gives you a valid answer on every single result. This story, and most like it, is incompetence in the python language, in googling, or both.
The interviewer was right. If you don't know "if substring in string" by memory, your python programming is substandard. This should be automatic for anyone who works with python as a primary language. But if you can't even Google to find "if substring in string", why would anyone pay you even minimum wage to be a programmer?
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but this is a ridiculous thing either wya.
I've used Python as my main language for ~10 years in various professional roles (DS, DE, SWE) and I so rarely need the exact construction `substring in string` that I probably would have blanked on it too in an interview. 99% of my string processing is .startswith/.endswith and re.search, that's just the way it goes. Hell, I know the difference between re.search and re.match by heart (do you? no? you're substandard!) but I genuinely forgot that `in` works on strings.
I started doing "ML" ~ 20 years ago building classifiers people would laugh at today and even at the time barely impressed people when they were 95% correct.
I moved into NLP and built NERs that missed 2-10% of named entities per document routinely. Best of breed approaches and models rarely fared better.
Learned the cornerstones in school for ML; linear regression, ANNs, traditional RL, image classifiers, A* bots, etc, most of which got baked into transformers later on.
Then the transformers went from interesting novelty to useful. I couldn't build a useful one locally, but the toys versions were still fun to play with.
Then the novelty LLM went from useful to generally applicable. Then they became a silver bullet.
I still can't build one locally. I can distill or build or fine tune if you give me some rented GPUs. But to call this ML is very much a stretch.
I still use the traditional ML a lot, but mostly for evals and analysis.
I get being naturally bummed by this but I can't justify feeling anything but vaguely nostalgic about it. Someone with a $20 subscription can mog anything I can build with the skills I picked up.
If someone hands you a silver bullet you'd be a fool to decline it and spend your time hand casting a crude piece of brass. If the difference between 95% and 99% means you know how to aim or oil the gun, that's the world we live in.
Building a good RAG pipeline or prompt optimization or LLM consensus is dumb stuff that produces a better result than anything I could do from my 2010 ML/AI textbooks. I don't lack the knowledge or capacity to compete, I lack the compute.
Exactly. Besides cost, domain-specific models (which can still be very large) encode our biases (i.e., our knowledge about the domain) in their architecture. Because of that, we have ways to calibrate their accuracy trade-offs over an in-domain sample.
For LLMs, there is a disconnect between the perceived domain (anything a human can think and verbalize) and actual domain (word sequence prediction). We only know how to sample from the latter, not the former.
This "silver bullet" idea sounds a lot like "free lunch". There has been a lowering of the bar for ML practices to make way for this onslaught of prototype-level productivity. Teams that used to do their best to run uncorrelated evals are now having the prompt engineers manually inspect ~100 model outputs before launch.
People were shocked by the accuracy of n-gram models and user interaction data to "read their mind" and complete their searches. Now we're obviously all impressed by the emerging abilities of LLMs (integrated with lots of business logic by the LLM providers). Hopefully in time we'll get desensitized a bit and have the right mental model when using these tools.
> I get being naturally bummed by this but I can't justify feeling anything but vaguely nostalgic about it. Someone with a $20 subscription can mog anything I can build with the skills I picked up.
Welcome to the data science job market of the 2015-2023 where everybody with a $20 online course could become a proficient data scientist in only 4 weeks!
Exactly. Not 4 years ago I was rejected from a job for not having enough NLP experience. Can you imagine that today? Someone being hired to do NLP in the market of LLMs?
I had such an interview once. The recruiting agent explained to me beforehand that this is kind of a "stress-technical" interview, supposed to test my real knowledge as I would have to answer the questions without thinking, almost instinctively.
My interview happened on the phone while I was commuting on a crowded train, and was extremely successful - at the end, we both agreed that we were not looking for each other :)
This was back when leetcode was just coming in full swing (early 2010s), which since then replaced it completely. I think the (startup - coincidence?) company that was trying to hire simply didn't have the money to pay for a leetcode hosting service, a phone call costs nothing after all, only time...
TBF, your current title/project isn't the same thing as what you're capable of... I have a lot of experience with both front end and backend systems.
I was brought into a new job as a UI expert, but still had some opinions on the backend approach... I overheard a conversation that included, "what does he care about the backend, he's just a UI guy." I don't think I've been quite that pissed off any other time in well over a decade at a workplace.
I had an interview like this, I got annoyed and just responded with "I don't know" to all of his questions. Then the CEO of the company offered me a position, politely declined ofc
It's a good job I wasn't being interviewed for this job, as I have not one iota of a smidge of a clue what PEFT and LORA are. And I have no idea what varieties of prompting technique there are.
PEFT is more niche as it's a specific library (https://github.com/huggingface/peft) that creates LoRAs, but for a machine learning engineer working with LLM models outside of just prompting an API, it's within scope to know why/how a LoRA should be used.
Whenever I'm in an interview (almost) like this, I happily remind myself that interviews work in two directions: they are also for me to evaluate my possible employer.
"The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping."
After the interview, the recruiter who introduced me to this job said they had another role for me. But first, he wanted links to the other positions I'd applied to, what those positions were paying, and how far along I was with each one.
I told him I wouldn't do that and he said that it was ok. Haven't heard from them in a year or so, but I'm sure that other interview is in the bag.
They'll frame it as not wanting to waste anybody's time by submitting you as a candidate if you're already mid-flight on other positions, but they can still figure that out without having specifics on the actual company, role, salary, etc.
They're banking on you offering it because saying no would rule out any mysterious prospects they have to offer, but really they're looking for new leads and if it comes from a candidate then it's warmer. Just have to be polite when you give them vague info and say you're not able to share more than that.
I do think sometimes the interview process can be weird as hell, but if one is to name and shame it doesn't help really, they could change their processes and even take feedback but if there's a constant record of the oddities it can turn off potential perfect fits. I've been shocked how many people will base their approach off of Glassdoor reviews from 5 years ago for example.
I think it's fair for a company to improve, plus it makes for funny posts like this!
Also I'm not sure it's such a tabboo as it is a stigma on the applicant!
I was excited, it was a game company, and I'd wanted to get back into games - or more specifically, game engines - for a few years. The tech of this particular company was interesting, an in-house engine developed by wunderkind, of course, and they'd invited me for an interview because I had done a fair bit of low-level work, which would be handy for their rough edges. Apparently.
Half way through the interview, I had an epiphany. I really didn't want to work there. It was cultural, it just wasn't going to fit.
I didn't waste any more time. Half-way through a white-board challenge, I put down the marker and said, plainly, "okay, I've seen enough, I don't want to work here - thanks and let me not waste any more of your time", picked up my coat and left.
It wasn't a bad interview. It wasn't a terrible one. Nor was it because of the whiteboard question, or anything like that.
I just didn't like the guys. That's all it was. And I couldn't stand the idea of working for them - just the way the interview proceeded. I don't need to give details.
It was really the only time I ever got up mid-interview and left.
I had a similar thing where they were going through my code from a takehome.
It was with an architect and a lead developer and the architect was really rubbing me up the wrong way. Stupid nitpicks that were all style preferences. Not at all talking about the actual code. I start pushing back and he starts getting a bit combative, which sets me off a bit too as these were the days jobs were plentiful.
At some point he offhandedly mentioned I didn't need a particular line of code in the startup config. So I say, "Yes, that's required, it initializes the routing". He quips back, "No, that line's not necessary at all, you don't need it". The lead dev is looking completely exasperated at the architect at this point.
I paused, started a screen share. Went to the line. Commented it out. Ran the program and it fell over.
I then said, "I'm not interested in working with you, thanks for your time, bye"
I left a really good job for a year, to go work for a company CEO'd by a buddy of mine. I had a bad, sinking feeling in my gut from the very beginning when In interviewed with my new boss (not my buddy). Sure enough, I fucking hated working for him, and quit after a year.
When I was leaving my old job, I remember rationalizing it to myself that I would regret not doing it if I didn't try. I have mixed feelings about that job -- not necessarily regret for taking it, but definitely some regrets for how things went down at the end.
With that being said, if I had turned down that job, I don't know if I would regret it now or not. Who's to say?
Anyway, I got my old job back, and lasted there for several more years. It's still the best place I ever worked.
Nothing will take years off your life better than working for people you don't like in a company you don't want to work at.
I guess that is the problem with the current state of the world. Employers hold most of the cards and people are desperate to find and retain employment. As someone who has coupled themselves to the wrong trains more than I'd like to admit, I'd encourage all young engineers to ask themselves, "Is work more important than your mental and physical health?" Don't underestimate the affect of toxic people, management and companies on your brain and body. Over time you may pay the ultimate price; an early death.
I remember interviewing once and they told me what they were working on.
I was actually familiar with the product, but it had some glaring shortcomings, and I kind of groaned a little inside.
And I told them that I liked some things about the product, but then I unfiltered sort of pointed out what was wrong. I really wasn't interested in working on it (though I didn't say that outright)
And then they decided they loved and needed me. (and I didn't go there)
Sort of like dating I think. Show a little skepticism and you might unintentionally get more interest than if you were open and sincere.
I had a similar experience with another company. At one point during the interview, the HR department asked me to do a really stupid exercise, despite the fact that I am an engineer with over 20 years of experience.
I wrote an email saying I would not pursue the position, and they wrote back asking me to have another interview with them. I politely declined.
They probably understood that their method was not good.
I have never done what you did, but I am going to take note of the fact that it is something one can do. Because I've certainly had the same moment of realization a few times, and I went through the motions anyway.
I've been on the other side where I decided I didn't want to hire the candidate. I'd ask them some leading questions so they could get out early if they wanted.
I had something similar years ago. I applied for a job at a company, size around 150 people. Did two rounds of interviews which were great. They wanted me to offer the role. However, as a third round, I was going to do a meet and greet with the CEO and he was going to yay or nay me. At point I dropped out. If a CEO can't trust his delegate managers to hire the people they see fit for a role, then thanks but no thanks. That's not a company culture I want to spend most of my waking hours in.
I don't know your particular situation, so it might be totally different, but I think this is commonly just a formality and a friendly chat.
It's a chance for you to meet the actual CEO (or VP or whatever in a larger company), and also for them to get to meet you in advance, instead of effectively getting "blindsided" by a new person (to exaggerate a bit).
Usually, by the time you've gotten to that point, the decision to hire you has well and truly been made. I don't know what then would need to happen for the actually rather secondary function of giving the CEO the opportunity to veto to become relevant. I'd be curious hearing about anyone who's ever experienced it (on whatever side). I guess it can be a safeguard against vastly unaligned values, but I suspect it's very rare.
But primarily, and effectively, it's usually just a meet-and-greet. And it's hard for me to blame a CEO (or VP etc.) for at least getting to anyone who's going to enter a mutual contract to effectively become part of their company.
That was not the case in this scenario. I was told I would be offered the role if I came out favorable with the CEO (did he like me or not? did I jump when the said "jump"?). To me this meant that the CEO doesn't trust the people he hires. He clearly didn't trust the hiring manager's jugement and/or respected their position. The CEO delegated a task and responsibility but then felt to have to authority to override that, which maybe he does. However, that's not a culture in which I want to operate. If I was wrong, so be it, but I saw a red flag and I made a choice.
You know better, as you have all the information and we merely have a shadow of it, but that in itself still sounds like “standard boilerplate” to me.
I remember from my friends who worked at Google at the time, that everyone’s always been told that “every new hire’s contract lands on Larry Page’s desk, he has to sign off on it”, and you can probably bet your bottom dollar that Larry Page didn’t spend a lot of time on each hiring package, if any.
I'd argue I won't work there. "The buck stops here" is never true when shit hits the fan so it's just kabuki theatre in all other situations just to take credit.
Yes, it usually is. But in this case the problem was that the CEO could unilaterally override the decision made by everyone else, so it wasn't just a meet-and-greet.
Yea, it's not a meet-and-greet, as in there can be no impact to the outcome of the interview. You're definitely still interviewing. But, in every case where I got to the point of "You're going to chat with the [Founder|CEO|BigTech VP]," at that point the job was mine to lose. They're not going to waste a VIP's time if they're not serious about making you an offer. You effectively have the offer. Your job when talking to the VIP person at the end is to "sound like a likable, competent person, who VIP would be cool with saying 'yea I hired this person'." That's pretty much all you need to do.
Generally the chat with the VIP means: "You have the job, but I (VIP) want to just double check that my underling hiring managers are not totally useless."
No, you don't have the offer at all. If you did, you would already have the offer letter in hand and the meeting with the VIP would just be a casual meet-and-greet. When it is part of the interview process, it is very deliberately because the VIP has veto power, and thus the decision to hire has not been finalized.
Your job when talking to the VIP person at the end is to "sound like a likable, competent person, who VIP would be cool with saying 'yea I hired this person'."
As you point out, the VIP is the one making the hiring decision. Everyone before the VIP was just a filter before the actual decision-maker.
(Outside of tech) the only time it's normal for a VIP to be involved in the interview process is when they're interview for executive or other management level positions, or for a role that would be working directly with management on a regular basis. But tech likes to do things backward, and insist that a VIP wasting their time on a lower-level hire is somehow normal. It's not normal in any other industry.
The point of my comment (and yours) was that the hiring decision wasn't actually made, because as you point out (again): the CEO's decision was the only one that mattered.
That's a huge red flag for any workplace. The only time you should ever consider taking a job at a company like that is if you're unemployed and you need the job and have no other prospects.
If you got to that point it's just a formality, and unless you somehow blow it the job is (probably) already yours, if you decide you still want it. You seem to have jumped to unwarranted assumptions about the company culture; quite possibly the CEO does want to make sure the culture is good and remains good.
It's not necessarily a binary test of whether the CEO can't trust delegating to their managers; it's also your constructive opportunity to use that conversation to get more insight into where the company, strategy, product/service, customers etc. are going. A good question to ask the CEO is about the broader impact of your role: that should get you some useful insight, also you compare the delta between what the CEO says vs what the senior managers said vs what the recruiter said; they don't need to be identical but they should broadly agree, and it shouldn't reveal any fundamental disagreements or ambiguities (e.g. "your role is incremental support of product X" vs "totally rewrite it in language Y in the next 9 months"). Listening to their response should also give you subtle behavioral cues about who in the company does/doesn't have influence, credibility and where the pain points are: you can't generally get that from the previous interviews, and it can be a faux pas to explicitly ask.
(PS: if you find reasons to suspect the CEO isn't delegating effectively to managers, then ask the CEO an open-ended question "How much do you do yourself vs which tasks do you delegate to your managers?" then listen carefully to their answer. And it's still not necessarily a red flag, it may just be a new or inexperienced CEO, or maybe overcompensating for one or two bad hire experiences at current or previous company. Compare to their answer to "How do you assess new hires within the first 90 days?").
The only (minor) negative I'd take from this is that it still behaves like a small startup scaling quickly, and they haven't yet figured out how to to scale interviewing and hiring for when they get larger... but that's overall a good complaint, it shows they're still growing. It's much better that your signoff interview is with the CXO (or VP) than the Director of HR, or an AI bot. Honestly I'd pay more attention to how many days/weeks/months it takes them to make the hiring decision than how many management layers were involved; that's a bigger tell of organizational dysfunction.
My friend has been contracting at $STARTUP for a couple of years now with a revolving 2 month contract. His managers have not attempted to hide the fact they would likely end his contract once they've managed to hire a full timer into the team.
Sadly, their CEO has veto-ed every single full time hire they've tried to bring on for past 2 years now.
The product is old school PHP. They want to convert it to Go but none of the young engineers are interested in touching the codebase. My friend is the reverse instead, uninterested in learning new languages/technologies.
The only time a CEO should be meeting a hire is if the company is a tiny startup, or the role will be working regularly and directly with the CEO.
Otherwise, it's the worse kind of micromanagement. If the CEO wants to meet the new face they do so after the person starts, and this is the norm outside of tech.
I don't agree, but I think your perspective is valid so I upvoted you.
I've worked for companies that did this, in fact I'd say this is commonplace at startups and small companies, at least till around 500 employees or so. If I ever start another company, I'd operate the same way as a founder/ceo. While Dunbar's Number probably puts an upper limit on the number of people I can truly know in my organization, I think it's incredibly important as a leader to have the possibility of putting a face to a name inside the one endeavor (company) you are wholly responsible for. That doesn't say anything about my trust or lack there-of in the people below me on the org chart.
I almost feel the opposite. I've turned down jobs because I want to understand the strategic direction and the folks I was interviewing with couldn't adequately explain it and they were unwilling to let me meet the folks high enough up the chain that they could as part of my interview process. If I can't get the time of day out of the founder during one of the most important decisions (hiring) that their company makes, they're certainly not going to give me the time of day once I'm in the door and that means I have effectively no feedback mechanism. Why would I want to work there?
I fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics, but they were, in fact, non-technical — covering such lovely topics as the hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
Ha, I don't think anyone who asks these questions expects that you'll respond in a fully unfiltered way... These kinds of questions are part and parcel of non-tech interview processes.
You can redirect with some subtlety "Well, my hardest ever day at work was..." to avoid talking about dead babies or whatever. Your interviewer doesn't get to look over your whole life history and determine whether your /truthfully/ chose the actual hardest ever day. So really it's a chance for you to say "Here's a [big] challenge I once faced, and here's how I survived/overcame it."
Yeah, OP just unwinded himself, no filter. You can be truthful and open with friends and family, close people to you. You absolutely shouldn't when talking with strangers.
We weren't there, and the article is light on details, so we can only speculate. I see two options here:
a) The potential employer vastly overstepped commonly accepted boundaries.
b) It was totally implied that the questions were to be answered in the context of work. "What was the hardest challenge you had to overcome?" in that context relates to e.g. debugging a hard concurrency problem, not your divorce.
What stood out to me is that whatever interpretation is the correct one, the candidate was willing to give (apparently) deeply personal answers. That's just something to adjust for in upcoming interviews, we live and learn.
At any point the interviewer could have clarified if they meant "at work" when they received an inappropriate answer. The fact they did not do this means they did not mean "at work," which makes sense because the questions they ask neither specify that nor are worded to make one believe they are work-related.
What would be the point of conducting an entire hour+ long interview where the candidate is only giving you irrelevant answers and you make no attempt to get them on track?
It's wild to see so many advocates of "the inexperienced should have experience already". You're put in an awful situation but it's your own fault because you went through it, you should have known better than to take questions at face value as presented.
Don't you think an interview is a collaborative effort? What signal is the interviewer getting from a candidate if they're asking about work experiences and the candidate is answering with personal non-professional anecdotes?
Assuming that the candidate was in the wrong here, and the interviewer wanted work anecdotes, why didn't the interviewer guide them to the right topics? If they didn't guide them to the right topic, your assumption that they wanted work examples may be flawed.
This is what makes this a potentially (mostly) great interview. If the candidate can’t/doesn’t understand the dynamic of the interview and hates it, they opt out of the process.
Probably only thing I would’ve done differently would have been to limit first call to 30 minutes to save me time when someone is obviously a bad fit.
But why ask about "the hardest day in your life" instead eg "the hardest day at work"?
Personally asking this kind of personal questions sounds very weird. You can evaluate soft skills and culture fit by asking more relevant, professional questions. Except if the reason to ask this kind of more personal questions was sth else.
Notice that the blog post author did not provide exact quotes. In fact, they explicitly state they do not remember the wording. It's very likely that they did, in fact, ask about biggest challenges, and the author misunderstood.
I've done a couple bay area startup interviews where the interviewer specifically asks for 'personally / family' related anecdotes. With the explanation that they view their company as a literal family and want to make sure candidates would fit in. So I'm inclined to believe OP's description and understanding of the question
You are technically correct. But you must admit it sounds pretty bad to say "Yeah, the idea of the behavioral technical interview is the interviewer asks questions that look like they admit honest answers, but you should actually lie to them, and they expect you to lie, and actually it's a charade you play with your interviewer, and if you don't understand this (which is never explained to you) then you will immediately be rejected."
I can definitely understand the perspective of someone who has done few interviews not understanding this and being upset/confused!
It is also possible that they were trying to see, if the person had traumas that would interfere with their ability to work with toxic content, do red-teaming / etc tasks.
> Ha, I don't think anyone who asks these questions expects that you'll respond in a fully unfiltered way.
Cut to the interviewer telling his friends about the weirdest interview he ever conducted, with a guy who unloaded all his life issues on him instead of focusing on work. :)
My worst interview was at Uber (their security team).
The screening and technical interviews on site were all fine and dandy. At the end of the onsite interviews I spoke with the director in charge of the team. I asked some general questions like, "What's the team's work-life balance like?"
He chuckled and said something like they work 60+ hour works. I looked at him and said flatly, "Yeah, I'm not doing that."
The HR person called me after the onsites and was completely puzzled. She said she never seen a candidate pass technicals and not get an offer. She suggested sending me to another team (I declined).
> My worst interview was at Uber (their security team).
Worst? It sounds like a great interview where you set a boundary before going into a situation you would not have liked. People forget that part of the interview process is also for the candidate to decide if they want to work for the company.
I feel you. I once had a second-level manager interviewer suggest that I work through the lunch hour while on the job. I terminated that interview process the same day.
Would be funny if the interviewer wrote the exact same blog post; "I had the worst candidate interview today, I asked him a simple ice-breaker question before getting into more technical stuff, and he just went off about his family and relationships for an hour; weirdest interview I ever gave."
“He kept talking about dead babies, failed relationships and the time he cheated in an exam in grade five. Fifteen minutes in and I wondered not whether I would hire him, but if he would kill me and wear my skin if I didn’t. Or did. Little difference.”
I've had that before. I asked a woman to walk me through her career (I told her I've obviously seen the profile before, but I'd love to hear the elevator pitch directly from her) and she started off by saying,"Well, you need to know that I was raised in a cult."
And, yeah, I feel bad for her. But also: time and place.
I passed on her because she didn't have the technical skills, but that was definitely a case of the setting not being right.
Yep. This is definitely an OP-is-autistic problem, or is perhaps inexperienced. Not an interviewer problem. Keep it professional. If an interviewer asks a personal question then you simply refuse to answer (politely), or steer it back towards a professional context. If they persist then you end the interview.
Well, as someone with autism myself it's relatively easy to spot others, and given the information provided in the post I'd say chances are high. Not sure what rule you're referring to, it looks fine to me - autism is a super power, not a slur.
I don't agree. While yes, it's definitely possible the interviewee handled it poorly, I have seen enough poorly conducted interviews to say it's just as likely the interviewer was the problem.
My best guess is that as a mental health startup geared toward expanding access to therapy services, they were fishing for candidates who had some kind of experience with the industry, or who could prove their fealty to the mission. For example: "After grieving the loss of my brother, I tried to obtain counseling services. But my private insurance didn't cover that, and when I looked for supplemental insurance, I was stuck in a byzantine maze of options. There was no centralized and easy way to see what might be covered, and for what cost; all of it was hidden behind sales reps you had to contact over the phone. That's when I came to understand the value of the kind of service ACMECORP is looking to introduce into the market."
From the details I read in the post you are almost certainly wrong, not to mention being reallying condescending.
The interviewer has control over the room. They steer the conversation. They could have stopped this at any point. Instead they encouraged OP to go deeper for 90 minutes.
That wasn't OP misunderstanding a question, that was an interviewer enjoying the power trip.
Should OP take their mom next time to shut things down for them? You don't have to do what others ask of you, you know. I stand by my original assumption - they were too inexperienced with the world to know you can tell someone no, or lacked the ability to do so.
It might be cultural as well; I'm Polish and living in UK made me change my habits of answering "How are you?" questions. Same with Dutch from my experience - there are cultures where people say what's on their mind without the "I'm fine, how are you" bullshit.
Brits will either say "Fine, thanks" or not respond at all.
Poles will tell you that yesterday they went to visit their relatives, and now they're tired, or that their cat is sick, or that they having problems with something.
It's a difference between "asking when you don't care about response" vs "asking because you genuinely want to know how the other person is"
In Poland you would just say Hej! = I acknowledge you being there but I don't want to chat. But again, back to the point I was trying to make - the intent behind these sort of questions (and answers) can be cultural
It was a textbook example of the double contingency of communication¹. In communications it doesn't only matter what each side is objectively saying. It matters what the other side expects them to hear. And that goes both ways.
In this case the interviewer asked these questions to get to know the candidate in a professional setting, so they expected a diplomatic or professional answer. The candidate however misjudged the interviewer intention behind the questions, took them literally and answered them truthfully. Neither of these people is technically sporting a wrong position, yet the communication broke down.
That being said, the idea that you can choose not to talk about certain things is pretty basal when it comes to communications. If you have a trauma nobody can force you to talk about it and you should also not talk to everybody and their dog about it (and I know people who constantly do this and have a tendency to regret it afterwards). It costs you nothing to say that you can't think of any specific day, or talk about a day where a old boss at a shitty student job abused you, to frame it in work terms. To talk strategically or diplomatically is a skill that is needed in many positions. And that candidate displayed a total lack of that ability.
That being said I am not particularly fond of that type of question myself. Both as an the person carrying out an interview and the person going to one. I am more interested to see how a person tackles certain situations than to have them tell me stories about it.
No. Reread the post. This interview was specifically explained as a non-technical, cultural-fit talk, and the interviewer "gave an impression of this being a safe space". That means they said something specific to hint that this is the case.
Don't blame the poor guy who was subjected to this. You're projecting your understanding of what is normal for the interviewer and assuming that the particular interviewer didn't cross any of the lines you wouldn't. Unless you are the interviewer or know their side of the story, there is literally nothing in the post that would suggest your reading is correct.
A simpler explanation: the interviewer was an amateur psychologist with little experience in either interviewing or therapy. They asked "interesting questions," then were overwhelmed by answers they hadn't expected and couldn't gracefully handle. That's it. Please, unless you know more about that particular instance, don't reflexively blame the candidate for what looks like a series of errors on the interviewer's part.
> In this case the interviewer asked these questions to get to know the candidate in a professional setting, so they expected a diplomatic or professional answer
And there is no bias in this assumption whatsoever?
I've been working as a dev for over twenty years now and have had my fair share of interviews. The very worst I ever had was about six months ago.
I'd had a fantastic initial interview, it seemed like a perfect fit and interesting tech. Overlapped a lot with some work I'd been doing recently. They made it sound like my experience was a great match and they were exited for me to move forward. I was the most excited I've ever been after a job interview.
The second interview a couple days later was a one-on-one with the CTO. After about five minutes of pretty friendly get-to-know-you chitchat he asks if I have any questions about the position. I ask about what my day to day would look like and he replies "I don't know, and that's the problem. I don't like to lead people on, I'll be honest I don't see a position for you here."
It was such a sudden slap in the face that my brain just completely shut off. I kind of just stammered out an "Oh... Um... Thank you for your time"
I didn't get to talk about my experience ... at all. Not a single mention of my twenty years of across multiple tech stacks my resume doesn't even begin to scratch. I've never been judged so quickly or so blindly.
Later that day, out of sheer frustration I email him back trying to explain that I'd felt like I didn't get a chance to talk about myself and all the ways I'd felt like I was a great fit based on the previous interview and how my experience applied.
Yeah. It's kinda like when someone gets infatuated with someone but they don't reciprocate. Do you want to be with someone who doesn't like you? Of course not. Find someone else.
I have had my fair share of terrible interview as well. The key thing I learnt is that the interview is an opportunity for me to understand the culture of the company and judge my fit there as well. I know that the phrase "dodge a bullet" is used to death in those kind of situation, but if the interviewer is behaving unprofessionally you can safely assume the people in the company will be unprofessional in a lot more other area.
As an instance, I had an interview with a CEO of a consulting firm. He took the interview while on the metro, so half the time on the call I couldn't hear what he said at all. When the call ended, I send a message to the HR person giving quite a critical feedback and stopping any further process with the company. A few months later I talked with one of my friend who worked there for 3 months. The CEO and the legal department overlooked some certain paperworks with regard to employment insurance, and when the taxman came and gave them a heavy fine, they hide the situation from everybody until the situation became unfixable. The company went bankrupt essentially overnight and most of the employees has a 1-year plus insurance gap with no practical way to sue for it back.
Moral of the story: if the interview feels wrong, email them and decline going forward right away. Give yourself the satisfaction of consciously dodging a bullet.
>Moral of the story: if the interview feels wrong, email them and decline going forward right away. Give yourself the satisfaction of consciously dodging a bullet.
I wished I had known this earlier in my life.
I once interviewed at a healthcare startup ran by the brother of someone very closely related to the current occupant of the White House. This was 3 weeks after I graduated college.
I went through the first round, no problem. 2nd round, it was Halloween, and a nurse dressed up as a cow (spotted makeup and all) comes into the room and asks me to role play a situation where I have to deny life-saving insurance claims to a cancer patient who's been given a life threatening diagnosis.
Halfway through the exercise I asked the interviewer - "so, this is an insurance company, and the insured has been paying premiums for a while, probably 10s of thousands of dollars, and they have what is otherwise effectively a terminal diagnosis...and you're asking me to deny this person their only chance at survival?". I was given the response of "that's how insurance works"
Indeed. I've had a bunch of jobs, and my experience has been that the job interview sort of reflects the people and structure / organization you'll be working with.
To put it this way: The best places I've worked at also had good interview rounds, while some of my least enjoyable employers had less enjoyable interview rounds. The absolute worst interviews have been at places I didn't get an offer, or I didn't pursue afterwards.
If the person interviewing me is rude, glued to their phone, uninterested, and in general indifferent to what happens - I'm going to assume that's a reflection of how the company culture is. I can also understand that not all people tasked with interviews will bring their A game every time, and that there may be external factors at play - but those places usually show a pattern.
I've yet to interview at a place where the interview was terrible all around, and then find out that the company is gold.
I'd rather work at a company where the interviewer smokes a cigarette in the conference room than one where they give off rigidly hierarchical "nobody has any agency" vibes. Sure we might go bankrupt but I'll have to put up with a whole lot less dumb "we don't pay you to think" bullshit and morale will be way higher the whole way there.
Let me preface this by saying, I know this might be a privileged take. However, I've had some bad interview experiences but one thing I have never had happen and I never will do is cross the "just business"/"personal" line with anyone I may or am working with.
> hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
I would take these types of questions as "from a professional standpoint". If the interviewer corrected and wanted personal answers, the interview would be over.
> you will just never be open to a personal friendship with anyone you ever work with?
Building relationships with colleagues is possible but I have tried to be careful. I have made some friends over time that were once co-workers. However, they were only able to move to full friend once they moved on to other teams or companies. I don't see someone I work with day-to-day as a personal friend. I compartmentalize them, keep the relationship professional and cordial.
Moving someone to a personal friend has risks, especially if there is a chance you may work for or with them again. Some personal friendships may be able to outlast work drama, but so far I haven't had that happen for me. I've lost a few along the way due to negative conditions at work.
Have you had a personal friend that stayed around after leaving a bad situation at work? Any pointers?
My best friend is someone i worked with, and we hit it off immediately. He also was one of the people who interviewed me before hire, too. I left the company because of medication induced issues with co-workers (long boring story... careful with SSRIs kids!)
and we still ... actually he just called so i gotta cut this short
we talk 5 hours a week on the phone plus we run a PBX and chat server and stuff so we're constantly in contact.
Sorry OP you had to go through this - not knowing your circumstances, but golden rule, once the interview starts getting invasive, please cut it short and move on.
Recently I had an interview for a contract position.
First off, it was a zoom interview where the interviewer did not have his camera on.
He promptly asks me to share my screen - which I found odd, since I had no content to share with him.
Next - he tells me to go the top right screen of my mac and asks me to disable bluetooth.
I said am not going to do it, since I had my airpods connected and within the next second I also told him am not interested in proceeding with this BS interview.
There are boundaries of human decency, which you should never let anyone cross.
I get on the zoom call. Told it would be a general interview and same thing. No camera, then asked me to show my drivers license and social security card to prove my identification.
I asked why they needed this in the first interview. He stammered back and forth and then reiterated the interview would not go forward until I confirmed my identity by showing my drivers license and SS card.
Yeah, sorry bud, that's not happening and hung up. I kept wondering how many others got taken by this scam.
As we're all sharing some bizarre experiences we've had, I feel I have to chip in.
I had 2 very weird interviews with the same FAANG company, before actually joining the company in 2021.
Anyway, we're in 2011 and my career in tech has just started. I hear back from a recruiter regarding a role I've applied for, and to be considered for this position it is mandatory to be fluent in French. Which shouldn't be a problem as I happen to be French.
The recruiter tells me that the person that was initially supposed to interview me first (a native French speaker) is currently off sick, and that his manager will be interviewing me instead.
I'm in a room in the lovely old offices of this company, by the Bord Gais theatre for those who live in Dublin. The manager I'm about to spend the next 30 minutes with is American, and majored in French. At least according to the recruiter.
She greets me with a "bon matin !" which doesn't sound right in French, but that I immediately realise is the literal translation of "good morning!". She mumbles a few things which I now can't remember, but something along the lines of "la entretien il est aujourd'hui dans le Facebook, pourquoi ?". I just smile at her while trying to process what she just asked me. But I can't, so I ask her to repeat what she just said. V2 of her question is even worse, and we spend the next 5 to 6 minutes trying to understand each other. Eventually she switches to English and goes on to tell me how she moved to Dublin from the US a couple of years ago.
A few hours later, the recruiter emails me and tells me that unfortunately, being fluent in French is mandatory for this role and that I obviously am not.
Funny thing, I've been in Ireland for 16 years now, and I know a ton of people who also had some very weird interviews with this same company, all roughly between 2010 - 2017: like for instance a hiring manager who had brought her dog to the office (and therefore to the interview room). The dog kept barking / jumping on her, and she very clearly didn't pay any attention to the answers my friend was giving her (he didn't get the role). I could go on with stories like these ones for hours. All at the same FAANG company, all in Dublin, all between 2010 and 2017.
Like I said earlier, when I eventually joined in 2021 the interviewing process felt a lot more professional.
Better than my interview at a Apple, where one of the senior engineers who was supposed to interview me didn't show up - twice in a row.
I'd been recommended for the role by colleagues who'd moved to Apple; I gave them some rather pointed feedback for them to pass on to the hiring manager and moved on.
Wow, why do you think the communication was so off? (I don't know much about French)
My guess would be that the intervewing manager was just translating English sentences directly into their French worded equivalent without actually following the rules/grammmar, and so it was confusing -- right?
I initially thought they might be attempting to read off a Google Translate conversion but I suppose if that interview was face to face then that'd be implausible.
My understanding of the situation is the exact same as yours. Which I find funny now, but obviously not that much back then.
The interview was in person, and she only used her laptop to take down notes. I remember thinking to myself "jeez she could at least have prepared some questions" but nope.
I'm glad it happened though, as I've told this story dozens of times since and it still manages to make me laugh :)
Seeing as the entire point of FAANG having offices in Dublin at that point in time was a tax evasion strategy, they probably didn't give a shit about hiring or actual employees.
* The most recent one: I was doing an "AI assisted coding interview". The problem itself was simple. I gathered clear specs, I explained what I planned to do. I was supposed to use AI so I wrote down the main function signatures I expected (the API boundary) and wrote in the prompt what I wanted Claude to do. I wrote no code myself other than editing the output. When I got rejected, I was told it was because "I wrote too much code myself".
* Once I was asked a brain teaser. I solved the initial problem, but one of the follow-ups made it significantly more challenging. I wrestled with the problem for a few minutes, and realizing I was going around in circles I stated so and told the interviewer I wasn't sure how to proceed. I was expecting a tip or at least an acknowledgement, but I heard nothing. Blank silence with the interviewer staring at the screen. Since it was a zoom call, I thought my internet was down, but when I asked "hey, can you hear me?", he replied yes, and went back to radio silence. This was a pattern of the interviewer throughout the interview. Later on, after this question I implemented an algorithm and was asked for its time complexity. I mistakenly said O(n) (I forgot the initial sort), and the interviewer literally just stared at the screen and said nothing until after 10 seconds or so when I realized my mistake and corrected it - at which point he acknowledged and moved to the next question.
* Another one that happened two times (at different companies) is getting asked a very vague question, like "how do you fix a bug in production" (to which I reply with 'I try to replicate it locally, I go through logs, etc') and then being told by the recruiter the interviewer didn't like that my responses were "too generic".
Regarding the first you posted, it sounds very much like a "feature" sweatshop. Meaning that they have some product with customers, and will implement absolutely every single request they get from customers - and really just want prompt engineers that will ship out updates as quick as possible.
IME, there's been a rise of those for the past 1-2 years. They not only embrace AI/slop coding, it is a core part of their business model.
Unfortunately I fear this is going to become the standard in our industry. Everyone will be forced to rely on AI to "ship faster", to trade learning for short term speed.
I have a lot of interaction with mental health professionals, due to an organization in which I participate. Have, for the last 45 years.
Many, many of them are "Doctor, heal thyself" type folks. Definitely non-boring people. I am quite sure of this, for reasons that I won't go into, here.
Sorry it didn't work out, but you dodged a bullet. Take it from me.
I had a weird experience interviewing for a company recently. I'm in cyber security and I'm no way a SWE (my CV clearly shows that) and apart from the odd python/shell/powershell script I'm not a developer.
Job description matched 95% of my skills, and I thought it'd be a great opportunity to move to a more lean company, in a challenging industry. First interview with HR went awesome. For the second one I had a whiteboard to code a random problem. I never had a whiteboard before as I was never a SWE before. I tried my best but yeah not exacly what I've been doing for the last 15 years. There was a couple of system design questions which I think went well.
But anyway, received a rejection email a couple days after. What shocked me most was that I wasn't asked a single security question. Literally nothing about authZ, authN, threat modelling, vulnerabilities, frameworks, intelligence. Nada. All these things were listed in the role description, though.
I was upset but yeah, maybe they didn't know what they really wanted.
My worst interview was bringing my interviewer to a state of shock and hyperventilation from pointing out an error in their math formula they confidently showcased after telling me my prior answer was wrong. 10 minutes of intense breathing with a shocked expression on their face appeared, I was worried the person would collapse in front of me and didn't know what to do. In the end the interviewer collected themselves and told me they knew from the start I was right and were just testing me. And I instantly knew I failed that interview loop.
Two years ago I applied for a position in the Swiss Federal Gov's IT departement. The interview rounds went well, I liked the team and the atmosphere was good. They told me that I was the best fit from the people who have applied for the position. Before the last interview, which was with the HR and the "boss" of the departement, i got an email which described how the onboarding happens. So I went there on the next day and they started grilling me. I didn't put my pre University education in the CV and they thought that I'm hiding something from them. They also thought that i'm like 20 years younger than I am, although I told them multiple times how old I am and my age was as well in the CV. It ended without a contract signed. I had to send them all that stuff, like old school certificates (20 years old!) that weren't relevant for that position at all. After a month or so they told me that they do not want to proceed with my application since they found someone who better fits the position. The dude from the team called me and told me that the HR had vetoed me out. Crazy shit. You better don't throw your elementary school grades away!
There is, and should be, a red flag for these situations. No make that RED flag. If you go into an interview that leaves you feeling the least bit helpless or at someone's mercy then run screaming. Not politely, not quietly. Just say to calmly to the person that you find the situation abusive. It is. As you go out, if you see anyone or have a chance to talk to anyone, just tell them you found that your interviewer to be personally abusive. That you will not be willing to take the position if it is offered, that you will share you perception with others around you and expect an apology.
Then fall down and appreciate that you did not end up in that situation. And tell everyone you know not to apply or work there.
There's a difference between "red flags" and "imperfections". Every team has faults, which if you're experienced at interviewing/working many places, are usually pretty easy to figure out. These are distinct from "red flags".
Early in your career it can be hard to distinguish the two, but once you've joined a company where there really were "red flags" you quickly learn to differentiate.
Many people are reading the author's interview uncharitably as simply misunderstanding how to answer non-technical question, but I have absolutely been through loops (thankfully rare ones) that did have a "let's press on sensitive issues and see how tough this candidate is" round (one place brought in a consultant who bragged about his experience working with hardened criminals and terrorists to build out a true psych profile on candidates, I declined after learning he had had some "trouble" at a previous high profile job)
Sounds like you've never worked for a truly toxic org, which is great. But, especially if you're interviewing with smaller startups (as the author mentioned), there is a lot more variance and some truly messed up teams (and some truly remarkable ones as well) out there. I've noticed that HN increasingly doesn't have people that work at startups any more, so many people are probably less familiar with what's out there.
I don't know if they still do it, but the fashion, back in the 1980s, was to give a Myers-Briggs-type test to candidates.
Maybe I'm wrong, but given the type of company it was (and likely, the C-suite people), I guess that they were doing something similar. I assume that they really did want to know about the person's non-worklife stuff.
I would consider that crossing boundaries. It's also possible that some of the questions might have been illegal (in the US).
I disagree that you'll find "many red flags for any job"
I've interviewed at dozens of companies, received and accepted or rejected at least 20 job offers in my life, and rarely encountered true red flags. This is very different than saying it's a perfect 10/10, all life is about tradeoffs. What GP is saying is that "there are things that are not worth any tradeoff, and you'll know them by ... ", which is good advice, esp for young people, who might be willing to make uncomfortable personal sacrifices to obtain a job.
i agree with you, i've interviewed at a lot of companies, too, and seen only 1 red flag in retrospect. the flag was "we need to hire for budgetary reasons"
Sure, but there are some jobs that are so bad that this advice readily applies to. The sort of job that takes you away from your life, family and friends in a way not entirely unlike poverty does. It's good to recognize whether working somewhere will turn into this because it's... hell... working at those places.
Wacky question. But if you shouldn’t be commenting, why did you? Or was that one of those fake ‘I shouldn’t say anything’ that people do when they’re being jerks and don’t want to get called out?
The furthest I've gone in these jazz style culture interviews is asking people what they do outside of work for fun. This was for fully remote async positions. And it was important to know you had other stuff going on because the mental/personal health risk in failing at remote work is massive and life altering.
If, through wherever that discussion went, I wasn't 100% sure that you could stand on your own feet and wouldn't sink into the abyss, it was impossible to move forward. It was a tough line to walk sometimes because you don't want to pry personally. But that doesn't appear to be a universal opinion, it turns out.
Even if I wanted to, these questions aren't allowed in the company I work for, along with feedback related to "team fit". This is dictated by execs, dictated by legal, because it has nothing to do with proving competence, and opens up for employment discrimination lawsuits since you're persuading them (you have to understand the power dynamic) to reveal potentially protected info. For example, if a man say "Oh, I go hiking with my boyfriend!", he could also say "They didn't hire me because I told them I was gay!". Or, even "I spend time with my kids." since familial status is a legally protected class where I am.
As a person who does interviews, I have exactly zero interest in what people do for fun. I just want competent people that are nice to work with (in a productivity sense), and I only have 45 minutes to prove that, knowing that nearly everyone fucking lies. I see it serving no purpose other than helping enforce some monoculture within the group, because, genuinely, why else would you ask about free time activities during an interview?
Related, the only time I've asked this was early on when I didn't know how to interview. The only time I've been asked this, and answered, was with people who had just started interviewing (small startups and new hiring managers).
Great comment. It's really shocking how close to the legal line Silicon Valley tech companies get, and the extent to which many of them actually cross way over the line. A huge number of interviewers I've encountered are in extreme need of training so they don't so casually put their companies at legal risk. If I was Lawful Evil, I could probably make a career out of just suing companies for discriminatory hiring practices, due to the various landmines poorly trained interviewers routinely step into.
BigTech seems to be the best at it. They tend to have rigorous training, and often have a "safe question bank" that interviewers pull questions from, which are all vetted by lawyers and are known not to put the company at legal risk.
I think that's the best you can do for culture fit, cause at the end of the day it's just "can they shoot the shit and are they pleasant to be around". You can't really know a person technically or socially until they've been in the job for at least a little bit though.
It was... weird. I had a friend who was working there, and I needed a gig. At the time, in the city I was in, this constituted a pretty big advantage.
The role would've been customer facing but technical, which is where I've spent my career. I answered some reasonable panel questions, and then they had me give a preso on any technical topic I liked. I'm good at that, so I aced it.
Then we got to other questions: specifically, questions from me.
"Are you currently profitable?"
They were not. This, in and of itself, isn't a problem, but it leads to the next question.
"At your current burn rate, how many months of operating cash do you have on hand?"
(murmuring) "Two, but our founder funds us as we need it."
"Are there specific milestones that are tied to additional capital infusions, or any formal agreement, or is it all just at his discretion?"
"It's discretionary but he's very committed to the company."
Having already had negative experiences with one-rich-dude companies, I thanked them for their time and left. I was VERY surprised when they called me a couple weeks later to MAKE A SERIOUSLY LOWBALL OFFER, which I literally laughed at. At least the dude who made the call seemed to understand the company was insane.
My friend jumped ship shortly after. He had more tolerance for Weird Startup Shit because of family money, but it got too weird even for a guy who didn't need the income, if that tells you anything.
I had an interview many years ago, that wasn't nearly as traumatic, but the interviewer asked me about my failures like 4 different ways.
- Tell me about a time you made a professional mistake.
- Tell me about your biggest failure.
- Tell me when you last shipped a bug.
- Tell me when you took down production.
Never asked me about my accomplishments, or the positives. I'm prepared for being asked about making mistakes, and have a few examples ready to give depending on the job I'm interviewing for, but to get asked so many times in a row was just deflating.
I conducted a few hundred software engineering interviews while working for a non-tech corp. Aside from technical problem solving & programming interviews we'd also ask a few behavioural questions -- including asking about times where the candidate had made a mistake at work, or a time at work where they were very frustrated.
What we were looking for
- people unwilling to admit they'd ever made a mistake -- red flag
- people who could reflect on the situation and say what they'd do differently in the future
- ideally, people who could use their mistake / failure / bad situation as an example of how they then took initiative to improve things by doing blah blah blah
People who were able to give an ideal response had clearly practised for this kind of question & knew how to play this part of the interview game.
Behaviours valued by one type of potential employer may not be valued by another. Small businesses & startups might value folks who take initiative and have a bias for action. In contrast, regulated megacorps might value folks who are great at consulting stakeholders and getting buy in before making changes, and steer clear of people they believe will go off and do stuff unilaterally.
One rule of thumb for handling these kinds of behavioural questions is "STAR" -- situation, task, action, result. Use the prompt for the question as a way to pick an example, then figure out how to frame an answer that shows you doing something to improve the situation. There's a fair chance that your interviewers are trying to mash your response into a STAR format in their own notes, even if they don't hint for you to respond in this way.
Right, I'm aware, and like I said, I expect those questions, and I have several examples I'm prepared for, and can tailor it to the interviewer. Like if it was a devops role, I could talk about when I took down production and what I learned from it. Or I could talk about when I failed to properly manage a junior if the role was more management-oriented and what I learned from it. Or when I badly architected a feature, and what I learned from it, and so on.
What I _wasn't_ prepared for was 4+ of those questions in a row, and _zero_ questions about my experience, or strengths, or anything else. The questions were more of the type "when did you stop beating your wife?". In retrospect, I think the interviewer already had someone they wanted to hire, but were forced into it by HR due diligence or something.
Where I work we divide up topics and questions so we aren't all asking the same thing in an interview. This guy might have been given the "handling failures" scenario.
It's possible that's what happened here and the interviewer also just wasn't very good. Some people just really suck at interviewing.
I think a lot of technical people interpret interview questions literally. Like yes of course the prompt starts with a negative - but you don't actually have to answer the question fully and literally, this isn't a college exam.
You could for example start talking about how you thought something was a colossal failure only to realize looking back that it was an incredible learning experience and how sometimes the only way to learn big lessons like that is by trying the experiment. And how it's only a failure if you stop. But you kept going so it wasn't really a failure.
Honestly we should probably take a page out of politicians' or media trained people's playbooks and not even answer the question as asked but relentlessly steer towards what you really want to talk about.
I too am capable of waffling to an interviewer. My favourite "took down production" story is a segue into why, when your interns ask you to look over the command they're about to run against the prod environment because they're not 100% comfortable, you should do it, and a broader chat about infrastructure-as-code and review processes.
I don't think it's good practice for the interviewer to require the ability to dissemble from software engineers, though.
Interviewing is difficult IMO - asking imperfect people to judge imperfect people in a short time.
In my experience, which is not that great, it's the attitude that people have which is more important than the perfect answers. You're usually hiring for a team so someone who is prepared to be decent to others is essential and IMO their 10xness is much less important than this.
Then I want someone who is interested in computing or things in general - not purely motivated by the money. That sort of person who is going to try to do a good job for the sake of it and who wants to learn something new - who will be ok with doing things they're not yet experts at.
These 2 sort of areas are not easy to have together IMO. If I find people like this I am eager to work with them.
What I get from being the interviewee is that other people are not always looking for these characteristics. They're often looking for someone they can dominate. This is like my point about being part of a team but taken further obviously. In a team you cannot have everything your own way but you get to put your point across and see if you can convince others, as a peon in a feudal system you will have nothing your own way and must not only do but also say and pretend to think what you are told.
Bullshit is just really a test for whether you're amenable to being part of the propaganda. Some people have no trouble doing this but I think there's something about being a programmer that tends away from fakeness. That's not to say that we haven't got an overload of bullshitters but at the root you have to be able to make things that work.
I've been on both sides of the interviewing process and I agree with you.
It's the questions like "what is you greatest weakness?" that tick me off where an honest answer at most places will probably kill you chance of getting the job. Instead you are told that the "right" answer is to pose a strength as a weakness. I don't see the point of asking questions like these. What are you learning about the candidate from getting the expected BS response?
Ironically, I think having the self awareness to recognize your own weaknesses is a great strength, but this question subverts this.
Truth is, most people who interview people have no idea how to do it. I know because I've done hundreds and nobody ever trained me or explained to me how to do it properly. Over the years I've seen so many people on both sides of the table that I developed a method and I got semi-functional at it but so many people doing interviews shouldn't that bad experiences should be almost expected by now.
I've done at least a few for every company I've worked for. Ironically, the smallest and worst-managed one is also the one that put the most effort into training me on how to do interviews. I'm not sure what to make of that.
Years ago, I was interviewing a woman with a teammate of mine. He loved to ask the question: "why did you leave your last job". He asked it (as usual). She looked at him and said: "I was being sexually harassed by my manager. I reported it to HR, but they did nothing. I left to protect myself." Brutal. It was like an axe was thrown into this guys heart. Short story: He never asked that question again.
Heh, I once interviewed at a place that asked me to sit the Oxford Capacity Analysis test as part of the process. (The Scientology personality test, for those unaware.)
I politely declined, which seemed to confuse the interviewer, but he moved right along. I still got the job lol
A bit culty, if I never hear talk about hatting and going on post again I'll be quite happy. So many practices and stuff that I didn't realize were Scientology-related until I looked them up later
Wth, are you people crazy? Never, under any circumstances, don’t share personal details during job interviews.
Instead have a list prepared with the BS question list like: what is your greatest achievement, what is your biggest failure, how did you deal with some difficult relationship in the team, how did you unblock some item etc etc. Use chatgpt for preparation, what you say there has to be very vague and not pointing to any of your previous employers or colleagues.
No way this part of the interview process should be something where you, excuse my French, display your underwear, but instead you should be able to prove that you are capable to deal with some difficult inter human situations.
I also had a remote interview for an Australian agency company. I went to their website and it was all Australian folks, name, photos, etc. Their website also has a video of them working inside the office, having a meeting.
When I joined the call it was just a couple of Indian persons, with the video resolution of one fella so low, it was hard to make up his face. The other one was a female which did not turned on her camera for reasons she mentioned something she was sick and don't like turning it on.
I had lots of remote interview, but this one is just borderline creepy.
That sounds quite scammy, like it could have been designed to scam applicants or people that wanted to hire that agency.
Then again maybe giving an image of a more normal "white/multicultural" Australian office might make it easier to sell services into the Australian market.
Automattic, the company behind Wordpress, is so proud of they way they are working and the clear process for interviews. They invite you to a Slack channel, you get information before hand so you know exactly what they are looking for.
When I interviewed with them I've already worked with PHP for 20 years, even working on the Zend Framework, experiences in Javascript, HTML and CSS, leading projects for the longest time. But the interviewer I had seemed not to be interested very much. Shortly after the interview they threw me out of the channel, so I couldn't get to the information they shared yet they told me "Come back in a year when you are more experienced". Experienced in what? Well they never answered.
Of all interviews I had during that time they were the worst. Not really human. They saying "Automatticians are curious, driven, compassionate, tenacious, autonomous, friendly, independent, collaborative, communicative, supportive, self-motivated, and amazing with GIFs." I haven't even seen them posting a GIF.
Earlier this year I was told I failed an interview because when asked why I wanted to join a company, my answer "could apply to other companies in the same stage of life." They apparently required me to be _uniquely_ interested in their company. There were other oddities about their interview process.
Assume that every singlemotherfucking breathing human you find in your life wants or at least likes to feel special, and that any company that asks you that question wants you to massage their ego a little bit.
Don't think much about it, just believe what I am telling you. It is going to save you a lot of grief.
That question may be a little bit praise seeking (especially in other contexts), but it's also a way to ask if you did any research on the company, or do you just spray and pray.
If you took time to do a little research and validate that you fit more than 'i need a pay check and you have paychecks' that's valuable for the company. Your judgement may be poor, but you self screened, so that's an extra screening.
> Remembering (and using!) someone's name is a magic spell, too.
When it's done to me, it's the magic spell of "I Distrust You". A time or two is fine, as is its usage if one is -say- in a group conversation where it can be difficult to understand to whom one is speaking, or -say- one needs to get my attention when I'm focusing on something else.
In my many years of personal experience, I've found that people who behave as if speaking my name to me is a magic spell absolutely do not have my best interests at heart. At best, they want to manipulate me into doing something that I don't wish to do. I recognize that my opinion is not universal, but I am absolutely not the only person on earth who's like this.
Isn’t the magic in the "time or two"? For example I always make it a point to thank call center people by name after they’ve helped me, even though their name comes up exactly once before that point (when they introduce themselves). It’s just extending a basic courtesy, treating someone like a human being. (Of course, remembering the name of who was helping you is not just basic courtesy but also useful for other reasons.)
Seems the message got distorted from "remembering people's names shows you care about them" to "use people's names unnecessarily or in bad faith". I was pretty upset by that Apple Intelligence ad where Bella Ramsey pulls up someone's name and then pretends she remembered it – yuck.
The worst thing about even relatively-good advice of this sort, like Dale's, is that applying it well requires being so good at these kinds of things that you probably didn't need the advice in the first place.
People who've read a couple of these books and are trying to use them are usually transparent, and it hurts way more than it helps. If they weren't inept at applying the advice, they probably wouldn't have needed it. Especially if they're not very young—if they're older and haven't picked up most of that stuff through natural observational skills and curiosity-driven trial-and-error, their odds of reading and practicing their way to significant improvement seem low.
This goes for "nonviolent communication" and similar, too. Trying to use these things if you weren't already a natural just red-flags "I'm trying to manipulate you".
"First, genuinely care" is only a little less useless than "be attractive; don't be unattractive". In practice, most of the folks with a problem in that area aren't going to read the book and do the work on that bit before trying to apply the rest. Those without such a problem, likely don't need the book.
I always counter the question by asking them why they are uniquely interested in me. That way they usually skip the question. (You should still have an answer ready for all of the obvious questions)
Every time I've been asked this question, I answer with total honesty up to and including the one-word answer "money." I got an offer with that, by the way.
I'd prefer not to work for a firm that's smelling its own farts. I'm happy to have worked for several firms where I really believed strongly in the product and the mission, and I've left companies when I felt they had lost sight of their mission. But at the end of the day, it's a job. I give you labor and expertise, you give me money.
I mean... He knew, you knew (or should have known), but it's part of the silly little dance you have to do to flatter their ego.
Imagine having a first date with a girl and saying "you're basically the only one who would talk to me on tinder, but I could date someone else". Technically correct, still not something you say unless you're pretty far on the spectrum.
15 years ago a FAANG flew me from England to the US for a grad interview. The HR recruiter met me for a coffee before the tech interviews started and said she'd ask me some gentle questions to ease me into the day.
She opened with "do you believe in god?" Not knowing laws or workers' rights in a foreign country then I had to give a very stunted, mumbled response. I complained after I got back home and was told she should not have asked that question.
One thing I've done in the past when interviewing candidates is to create a hypothetical situation where the candidate doesn't know how to proceed, like some difficult technical issue. I'd also tell the candidate that their manager and peers are all unavailable. Then, I'd ask how they'd go about trying to resolve the issue and proceed. Honestly, I was never looking for the correct resolution. Rather, I was just looking that the candidate had some basic process for troubleshooting and figuring stuff out on their own. If someone said, "I'd search Stack Overflow until I found the solution.", that was usually good enough. However, all too often, candidates just couldn't understand what was being asked, like they independent troubleshooting was an unrealistic skillset. I'd say, "Just walk me through how you'd approach solving this issue." Some candidates would fully melt down, saying, "I don't know. I can't proceed."
I would've ended the interview. "I don't want to waste any more of your time. It's clear to me I won't be a good fit here. Thank you for the consideration." <end call>
I can share mine. It was a job interview with one of the fastest growing companies. They were expanding sales positions in APEC region, specifically Korea. I am not really into sales, but I thought okay because it was such a big opportunity to work for this company.
I got three rounds of interviews including technical ones, then I had an interview with my potential team lead. The first thing he asked was about my MBTI personality test, which I hate and didn't pay much attention to learn mine. It seemed every encounter in Korea began with this MBTI test, but common in a job interview? I honestly answered him that I don't know my MBTI and just described my personalities in general. Then he started describing his MBTI and told me that I may not be the best fit with him because this and that.
A few days after, I got an email "... sorry". I don't want to believe that his MBTI question attributed a lot to this decision.
I've had some rather interesting interviews myself, with several of my most ridiculous stories ironically being from here.
One guy -- the reason I started building a tracking tool, after I noticed that his email was autofilling when I went to send him a message -- ghosted me after I wasn't available the first day and time he suggested. Which was also a holiday.
Another place, a stealth startup, was a panel interview with their three founders -- two tech leads and the CEO. The tech leads actually had really interesting discourse, and I wish I could remember the name of the guy who told me that "testing means never having to use my brain for the same thing twice." It actually never occurred to me before that an interview could provide you with useful knowledge, let alone that an interviewer could make a point of imparting those things on purpose. However, their CEO asked me to commit 5 years of my life up while also refusing to tell me anything at all about what the company did.
Within the past year I also encountered one that expressly asked me for things I didn't like about a previous employer; badgered me when I didn't want to elaborate about a specific, traumatizing, walking HR complaint of a man; and then -- after I described vaguely how organizations and their leadership change over time -- explicitly asked me to rate that individual on a scale.
(The other two were a while ago, and Idk that they still exist, but the last company was SerpAPI, who advertises here fairly regularly.)
I don't think this was a job interview. I think they needed research for their own project, and they used you as a test subject under the cover of a interview for a job position. They probably tested what type of questions work best to get information from the subject in their project.
One fun trick I learn (or more like two tricks) is to start working with the person during the interview. If you do a lot of interviews you get to see a lot of different ways to do it. Their job is to do interviews but they never get to see how others do it. You can tell them what they are doing right, what interesting approaches others take, what you would do and how they can improve.
If I notice they cant talk about improving the way they do things I cant get out of there fast enough. It's one of those places where everything goes wrong but you have to actively pretend it's not.
Beats my worst interview. For some reason I mentioned that I like reading. The guy then demanded to list the last ten books I read. I just named ten random books that I had read at some point in my life, even in childhood. Pretty bizarre. Glad I didn’t get that job.
Asking you to name a book or two to continue the conversation is fine, but 10 is ridiculous. That interviewer literally pulled the "oh you like _____ band?! name 5 of their albums" meme on you.
Asking for a list of 10 is a pretty specific version of a natural conversational follow up "what have you read lately?" Sounds like a coder with bad social skills. Like a bad sitcom where I could totally see a Sheldon asking that as a response
I can imagine getting myself into a similar fix. I'd like to think I'd calmly clarify that while I enjoy it I don't get through as many as quickly as I'd like; I'm currently reading blah, and previously blah and blah, but I can't recall the last ten.
Because they're presumably just trying to call bullshit, since it can sound like such an easy probably oft-recomended 'hobby' to say you have, so it's 'oh yeah well what have you actually read recently then', not actually 'I now therefore expect you to have perfect recall over your read catalogue'.
I got "tell me what you're passionate about" last time, and I'm curious what a bad reply would be, because I showed them a silly comic I drew on my phone. Apparently that was fine.
A pattern I’ve noticed on high performing teams is that individuals were or are excellent at something, anything. I suppose that could be an interview question, but people may not want to share their competitive barbershop quartet videos with a stranger.
"The industrial society and its future" - Theodor Kaczinski.
"The communist manifesto" - Karl Marx.
"Rules for Radicals" - Saul Alinsky
"Hitler's War" - David Irving
"The Souls of Black Folk" - W.E.B. Du Bois
"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" - Tom Pickety
"Las venas abiertas da America Latina" - Eduardo Galeano
"The question of Palestine" - Edward Said.
"Grapes of Wrath" - John Steinbeck.
"The conquest of Bread" - Kropotkin
"Problems of Leninism" - Josef Stalin
If adventurous, I'd cite another one I've read that should not be mentioned amongst educated XXI century folks, as they think reading a book means you agree with the author.
Not the last 10 books I've read, but books I've read along my life and that would maybe make the guy think twice before considering making me an offer.
The funny thing is that I consider myself pretty much a conservative. But I am a small c Conservative, I distrust big corporations, big military, imperialism, and as a catholic, I abhor social darwinism. Of course I want my moral values to be the values of the society where I live in, but I prefer a world where this happens by evangelization, persuasion instead of cohercion.
I believe in private property, but I also believe that ultimatelly we are all children of God, so all us should partake in the world God has given to us, and everyone of us should have a job that give us dignity and purpose, access health care, health foods, a roof over our heads, a warm and inclusive community and a lot of second chances.
People who are excited about these ideas are prone to be communist enjoyers. Which in practice is a braindead path, as demonstrated by countless examples.
I mean, what's the cutoff for something like that. The last book you read seems innocent enough.
The last 3? No red flag yet...
10 though is kind of a lot.
"Actually, I just pulled up your goodreads profile, and it looks like your eighth-most recent book was 50 shades of grey. In addition to having a faulty memory, you're reading work-inappropriate material. Finally, you read that in 2021, so clearly you don't care about reading /that/ much. Dismissed!"
It's a fairly common english phrase that originated out of the gaming culture of the US in the mid 2000-2010s.
"He's so good (plays aggressively) he must be on crack" sort of became "he's cracked", etc. Now that the people who were killing CoD lobbies are writing code full time or running companies, its seeped out.
Actually I think "it's cooked" came from this as well.
"Crack team" long predates video games and even crack cocaine. I think it is related to the phrase "get cracking", i.e., "get working", but I wasn't able to find a clear etymological line. One possibility is it refers to gunfire, but I wonder if it refers to harvesting, cracking corn, etc.
Notably, if someone is "cooked", it's bad. If someone is "cooking", it's often (but not necessarily) positive, most commonly in the form "let him/her cook" or "he's/she's cooking".
I have no idea where "cooked" came from, but "cooking" seems to be from the very old phrase "cooking up" which broadly meant something like "creatively making" and didn't specifically refer to food.
I believe it was emergent from FPS gaming culture, particularly following the popularity of Apex Legends. In Apex Legends you have an energy shield which serves as a buffer of hit points. When playing cooperatively it is useful to communicate when this energy shield is "cracked", thus the line "they are cracked" emerged. This originally meant a target player's shield is down in Apex Legend specifically, but it was then the Fortnite (and broader FPS) community which took this phrase and warped it to mean someone is precise or an excellent shot. Today it is certainly used in the context the original poster intended.
edit: Looking again, this may be overstated. Apex-era gaming culture likely helped popularize the usage, but considering older idioms like "crack shot," the actual etymological root is more likely there.
I have never seen it used in this way before around 2021, but it has become popular since then among the Twitter and YouTube tech influencer circle. Maybe that's where OP picked it up.
I'm with you, came here to ask this too. This is how I would have read it:
"Crack engineer" someone who is an excellent engineer, I feel like this goes back to at least the early 20th century, certainly long before gaming culture.
"Cracked engineer" a damaged person who is an engineer
Something I've learned over the years is how much it matters to feel good about the people you work with, and how much intuition matters in interviews and hiring generally (for both sides!).
It doesn't matter how much you enjoy your tasks or how good your comp is (unless it's enough to retire early) if you dread your colleagues and/or work environment.
I've declined customers or offers.
I think it's important for two reasons:
-For career growth and learning new skills (which eventually translate to more money), it's important to be in an environment where you want to crack tricky problems and exchange ideas with colleagues. Not to talk about the fact that good working relationships pay dividends later on for networking and such.
-We spend so much of our limited time on Earth working that we should enjoy it as much as possible, which, at least for me, is a function of liking who I work with and how I work.
Boy oh boy, the shenanigans I saw when it comes to job interviews are enough to write a book, not even joking, it was easier to start a business than getting hired as an employee, because building a business you talk with mature, goal oriented adults, who only care about what value that business will add. In jobs, that’s the last they care about nowadays, from morons in the HR, to power hungry managers, to contracts that I would say borderline exploitation with minimum regulations to protect the employees.
One job they got offended to ask for a negotiation, despite it was them who changed the original job posting. Another job took 4 interviews (plus one redundant, as it seems they forgot they had that interview with me) over 4 months only to send a generic “thank you” email. Another job, the interviewer seems was hostile just to have the interview. Another one the questions in the first interview were stupid, supposedly technical but extremely shallow, like tabs or spaces.. yeah, I got asked that! Another one refused to change a word in the contract because it’s a “template”, it felt like applying to a service rather than a job. And many other stories, like a company sent me a ticket for an interview in another country, only to find the team is disconnected from what the recruiter wants, they paid for the trip tho.
European companies seem slightly better than North American ones, but for some reasons bringing up the money talk early is a taboo topic? Had few calls and noticed that, they got shocked asking such question, even though it’s great to know so we don’t waste our time.
I never negotiated money, funny how that sounds, but it isn’t my no1 priority, all I wanted is a mature workplace and working with goal oriented people where nothing else matters that much than delivering the results, it seems it was impossible.
I believe the authors reading of the situation: its likely the interviewer wasn’t intentionally being cruel; most likely its this startups “unique thing that makes them stand out”; quirky twists that every startup attempts to make them stand out from the rest.
Honestly though, I think it ultimately worked out best for all parties. Its clear that the startup didn’t value someone that could be so vulnerable, and hopefully the author ultimately found a place that did.
My personal perspective is that for super early/founding engineer type roles you absolutely have to bring a greater part of yourself to work; you will be working over the weekends, working late, celebrating together and such… generally that environment is closer to a college club or fraternity than a corporation.
I've only had one terrible interview as the candidate, but there's one I conducted myself that weighs on my conscience. It was my first job in IT, and I was still a student back then with no real experience to speak of. A young guy came in to our company who was clearly very stressed, and I kept asking him hard questions - probably not to actually assess his competence, but to prove that I was the one who knew my stuff. That was 20 years ago and I don't remember the details anymore, I only remember that he was stressed and I just treated him cruelly with those questions. It wasn't anything offensive, I just keep recalling that moment and I regret it. Today, if I were conducting any interviews, I would make a real effort to make the person feel comfortable, even if they don't know everything or are a weak candidate.
Did the same once and I am still pretty ashamed; I must have been in a bad mood or something. I remember asking this guy who just got out of university to explain what "volatile" means in C.
A hiring manager asked me a question like those. I said: "sorry I'm not prepared, I don't remember from the top of my head." Right before that interview I was a solo founder. He said something like: "ok, so you just focus on the work?" "Yes." I got the job.
Psych eval without consent is unethical to say the least. And I disagree, the culture fit is not important at all - the way of working, the products, the attitude towards work all good, but the culture fit is a scam.
> covering such lovely topics as the hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
> talking about failed relationships, family struggles, and interpersonal challenges in previous work environments.
I think that's an interpretation that wasn't necessary (though I agree they're terrible and risky interview questions). I'd stick to hard challenges is my professional life, hard problems I had to solve, etc. My personal life is none of their business.
And I think there's the possibility you may have been rejected for sharing too much. But I agree that kind of question does invite sharing too much.
Not the OP, but having been in many similar interviews, I feel like it's an easy trap to fall into, especially if you've not developed a good bit of curmudgeonly cynicism.
At least when I've done these interviews, they will be extremely friendly, and they will at least act interested in everything you have to say. It's very easy to overshare when you think the audience is actually interested in what you have to say.
My worst interview was decades ago where the building was a walk-up and the office was on the 8th or 9th floor, something absurd. It was winter, I had layers of warm clothing on, and I walked into the interview a sweaty disaster and when my sweat became drippingly apparent panic kicked in and made it even worse. At the end of the ordeal I had to walk down the steps which also sucked.
I once had two onsite interviews with a 20 minute "break" in between. I was given a surprise crossword puzzle during the break to see (if I had a rich vocabulary?, excelled at puzzles?, could come up with synonyms under pressure?). The puzzle was then evaluated and discussed during the following interview.
The job was entirely focused on numbers in spreadsheets.
Cultural fit is important. You don't want to work with people who are not morally aligned with you or the company. A rotten apple can ruin the entire basket, but the problem with these cultural fit interviews is that the people who run them often use the wrong framework for their questions.
Who cares if you had trauma when you were 16? Will a past trauma affect your future at the company? Does the interviewer have a psychology degree to conduct such an interview?
In any case, do people have the right to a second chance if they did something morally questionable in the past?
I've conducted over 2,000 interviews in the past 20 years, and I've learned a lot. The best indicators of a good candidate are not questions like "Tell me your weaknesses" or "Tell me about a mistake you made."
The best indicators are whether the person spent time learning about your project, your company, the people who work there, the technologies, the product, the vision, the financial status, and the investors. That shows more interest than answering "Tell me about your hobbies."
Interview at Microsoft Serbia, around 2018-2019, for a general Junior Software Engineer position.
My expertise was in Machine Learning (this was way before LLMs and the current AI craze).
The first guy knew what ML was, but advised me to round up my knowledge with low level coding, cause ML is too abstract and isn't very useful.
2nd and 3rd guy gave me a mix of stupid brain teasers and high school math, coupled with questions about obscure C++ libraries (despite me clearly saying I've only done C++ back in high school and don't really ever use it).
The 4th guy, however, was the actual bizarre part. He was completely introverted or something, kept looking at the desk and eventually whispered to me:
HIM: Write an API for a book with chapters. It should be able to flip to the next chapter and flip to the next page.
ME: Sure, no problem, that's trivial. By the way, when the user is at the last page of a chapter and calls nextPage, should it give null or skip to the first page of the next chapter? What if it's the last chapter/page and the user is calling nextChapter/nextPage? Give null? Throw error?
HIM: Write an API to flip the pages and chapters of a book.
ME: Yes, I understand. But if I'm at the last page should it give null?
HIM: The book has pages and chapters. Your API should be able to navigate to the next page and next chapter.
ME: So you keep repeating the question over and over again, and not answering my question.
HIM: I don't know how I can say this any clearer, the book has chapters and pages and your API should navigate to the next chapter and page.
ME: You know, I'm just gonna write this with the null thing in it and we'll go over it line by line.
After a minute or so, I go through the lines and we get to the null part, I look at him while I'm explaining the line and his face shows no pattern recognition to my question. After I finish going through the code, he just picks up his stuff and says "Thank you for your time".
So was this a behavioral interview in disguise or what even happened there?
My worst interview:
The recruiter forgot about me. Then joined 5 mins late, asking me if we had actually scheduled something.
I said yes, so assembled 3 people 20 mins to listen to my presentation on my PhD work. No questions at the end of the presentation, sent a mail 2 mins later telling me they are not moving forward.
Genuinely opening up is a mistake. The incentives for these clearly mean that they actually select for candidates who are capable of glibly blagging their way through an extended conversation without saying anything inconsistent, weird, compromising or of substance.
This isn’t usually a required engineering skill. I’m guessing the interview was designed for salespeople and/or middle management.
I'd say it depends - evaluate the vibes. I spent 8y and recently 7y at a company where I genuinely responded with what I thought. But I'd say it's a matter of the audience - some people want to hear certain things and deciding if you can share these thoughts is up to you. It also allowed me to make decisions - if people don't care what I think and want sycophancy is this the company I want to be working at? I understand though it depends on one circumstances = you have to grin and bear it
Yeah, definitely just tell them what they want to hear on the personal question front ("tell me about a time..."). There's zero benefit to being truthful and zero downside to blagging it.
My worst was right out of college. It was for a really small company that needed a web developer.
I showed up, and it was two guys that were around my age.
They seemed annoyed by the interview, it was completely unprofessional, and I was told I didn't get the job because I didn't like a specific sports team.
I've met the same type interview recently, but not on the phone, it's a online web forms. I just write those not that important and positive memories, because I don't trust them from the start. Also, on the next step of the form, there's a statement shows they will use AI to analyze my personality. I feel uncomfortable and told them I don't like their way of interview and just end it.
I had an eerily similar situation in a behavioral interview I had with a company where I had a very strong internal referral from a very senior person. I didn't have any time at all to prepare for the interview and was super stressed out that week because of a cascade of work and personal problems all hitting me at once. In hindsight I probably should have asked for the interview to be postponed by a couple of weeks.
In short, I hadn't prepared at all for the interview loop, so I didn't have any of the standard responses "ready to go" for the behavioral interview. We ended up meandering into a bunch of stuff from my personal life, and I didn't have the presence of mind to course-correct it myself. It didn't help that the interviewer actively encouraged me to keep talking about the personal non-work experiences. I got the impression that the interviewer was self-deluded into thinking that they could do some kind of psychological evaluation of me, even though they clearly (in hindsight) had no formal education or training in doing that sort of thing.
Anyway, same story. After a few days, generic rejection letter, and no more communications. I can only imagine my interview loop feedback must have been horrific to overcome what I am certain was a strong internal referral by a very senior and well-respected employee at said company who I had worked with closely for several years (and he'd sung my praises at our previous company many a time when giving perf feedback). I keep replaying the behavioral interview in my mind and realize I must have come across really awkwardly to the hiring manager. In the end I felt much like the author of this blog post did, personally rather than professionally rejected.
I'm resolved no longer suffering pseudo-psychological behavioral interviews. If I get any questions that I feel cross the line between professional and personal, I'll firmly respond that I do not feel comfortable discussing non-work-related issues in a job interview.
I am sorry to hear this. If you were perceiving the space as safe and then you felt abused, I think this is something you should report. Maybe people working in mental health startup are experts in mental health, but there are very strict rules and guidelines that forbid abusing this "power" with other people, especially when unwanted, uncertain etc. During my therapy I've learned that the therapeutist is having monthly update on their actions with their supervisor, so they wouldn't do things that are for example unethical, or direct me in the wrong direction for some reason.
As other people mention in comment, this surely have been error of the interviewer, and in my opinion the feedback should be left.
I'd say I've been fairly luck as far interviews go. The vast, vast majority have been about as straight forward and by the book as they come. Completely predictable ones.
But I've had some iffy ones.
One was for a small boutique investment firm, for a data scientist type role. I'm not sure if it was part of their "stress testing" routine, but I was given a bash terminal where I had to SSH into some server, find data, and write a program to manipulate said data, and write it to a database. The problem was very straight forward, BUT one of the interviewers was practically hanging over my should for 60 minutes straight, commenting every other minute "No, no, you should...", "This looks wrong", "Have you actually done this before?", "Why don't you know..."
I tried my best to just be professional, and walk him through my thought process. In the end my program ended up doing exactly what it was supposed to, with optimal performance - but I couldn't get out of there fast enough. I thought to myself that I'd rather go unemployed than work under that level of passive-aggressive micromanagement.
But in the big picture, that's nothing. I have friends that have experience explicit age, sex, and race discrimination. Ranging from "Why should we hire [the caste this person "belongs" to]?" to "You better not get pregnant if we decide to hire you"
After reading your blog : I would say : interview depend totally on candidate on how he/she wants to drive, its never like an QnA, unless you are giving a HR round. its like : you say something : other person asks more about it : you explain more. and this is how an interview is driven.
The feeling you expressed is a true feeling of a candidate after the interview : but you are thinking that you did everything best : I would suggest to think from interviewer's shoes as well : how you gave interview : if you are someone taking interview : and candidate gave this responses : would you hire him or not
They showed you their true colours early and saved you the hustle of joining an organisation like that. I will rename the article "my narrowest escape!!"
It’s kinda ironic that after interviewing with a mental health startup, you ended up so emotionally disturbed that you might now need some actual mental health support to tackle the thoughts it brought up. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
I had one job, where at the very end of the process there was a multi-hour evaluation by a psychologist / consultant they used. Went over my full life history, school, jobs, etc.
It was all disclosed up front, so no surprises. Not really that bad.
I think the author was reading too much into these questions. I bet these people came up with random questions they thought were deep, especially coming from a mental health lens, but struck a nerve in the author.
They essentially weren't prepared for the raw human experience that was shared here.
I think regardless of whatever you face during an interview, true mastery is to let your humanity at the door and pull up a facade. If you cannot do it in that context, you dodged a bullet imho.. you wouldn't be able to recognize yourself a few years down the line working there with them daily.
> true mastery is to let your humanity at the door and pull up a facade
Or say "screw that" and go find work that lets you be a human, not a repressed shell. I'm in my 40s now and have followed that my whole life to great benefit. Barring about two months in a open-plan hell hole in my mid twenties which I still look back on and shudder, mostly out of empathy for people who spend their whole working lives that way.
This is hazing, and OP is right to be upset. They were put into a Catch-22 by the interviewer and I see no reason to believe that was accidental.
I see a lot of replies that accuse OP of oversharing, and that's bullshit. In any job interview, the expectation is that you answer questions to the best of your ability. If "I'm not comfortable answering that" is an acceptable answer, that is an exception to the norm and it should be made clear ahead of time.
Cultural fit is the number one predictor for a successful fit, however a big wall here is with certain personality types (especially surrounding IT).
In general we don't open up easily to strangers and hate personal questions. We consider many social questions to be just fluff and will either brush them off or pick something with far too much personal information.
These issues especially surface when being interviewed by a non-IT worker.
Back when I was younger and interviewing candidates for a startup where I was one of the oldest engineers my favorite "fit" question used to be "tell me your favorite 4 letter word".
I never actually based my decision on that one, only the technical questions.
This is an example of where I (probably) contributed to making some people feel uncomfortable and I wouldn't do it now.
If you answered that, my past self would have appreciated your answer and maybe even stopped. I mostly got things like: "code", "cash", "love" and one time a "fart"
I am glad you stopped asking that question. We all make mistakes and learn from them.
An I correct in assuming the “4 letter word” was intended to make the candidate think of curse words? I’m curious what the intent of this question was if it didn’t feed into your hire decision.
I remember having this interview with an HR person several years ago (like in the early 2010s) where she asked me all these vague, difficult to answer questions. None of them were technical, and I can't remember a single one of them now, but they reminded me of the vague questions we get from various IT audits.
An interview is a date between a company and a new employee. If either one of them acts inappropriately, or gives off strong "bad chemistry", the other party learns it is a red flag.
Sometimes these red flags are ignored because one side is desperate (lonely, horny and attracted, needs a job, needs the role filled soon). That's always a bad thing.
I once did a coding interview entirely in bash. and the poor software engineer giving the interview did not have that as a skillset. so he was deeply confused when I spent like 70% of the time building a massive sed awk xargs one liner. then proceeded to answer every question in order with it.
I thought he was so confused by it that's why I never heard back. Turns out it was much stranger. The recruiter died. Took them months to figure out his backlog.
2nd story.
I am the responsible party for some poor persons worst interview. And I still feel awful about it. Like they were panicking cause they really wanted the role, and honestly the interview questions were unnecessarily hard and designed to induce stress ( not my call just company decision. personally I can see some of the logic for it but I question the efficacy ). result is this poor kid was spiraling. So I tried to throw them some confidence builder questions... but they were so far into the spiral they bombed those too. And like... I KNEW they knew the answers from previous parts of the interview. But like, they just lost it mentally.
I was told later they spent like 10 minutes in the bathroom recovering before doing the next stage of the interview.
I fucking hated that interview. I still think about it. Wish I coulda just sat down with em after and just apologized and told em they didn't do anything wrong. They just had a bad day and that's fine. It happens. They can try again. Like... I hate someone took it that badly. I hate I was unable to get em that confidence boost they needed to show off their skill.
Experience sometimes just plain leaves scars for everyone.
Trauma baiting was a new term for me. Must’ve felt awful. Your story made me think of this old Far Side comic, where the psychotherapist just writes “he’s nuts” in his notebook[1].
It is OK to be rejected. Showing vulnerability (in a professional manner) can be a sign of strength and trustworthiness, but one should also be resilient when it isn’t a match and not dwell on it too much. Ego is the enemy.
I interviewed at a global leader in industrial cameras for an EE position. The interview slate had a slew of people from various disciplines but no EEs until the very end. Their last EE on staff was an over tasked H1-B who broke down in tears as I asked probing questions about what the job would entail and learned that the whole engineering team responsible for their legacy product line was axed in favor of reselling commodity cameras repackaged in expensive boxes. Everyone else knew nothing about what I was expected to do other than magically reverse engineer without any documentation.
Their lobby was filled with expensive midcentury furniture and their promotional materials had this weird cult like worship of their founders who were driving everybody into the ground. "Work hard play hard". I happily dodged that bullet.
During university, I had an interview for a quant role. I was asked an option pricing question, and then the interviewer immediately picked up the phone, asked something, then spent the next 2 minutes yelling at the person on the other end. I had a question, so I looked at him during this, and he paused, said "Why are you looking at me, you have 3 minutes left?" and went back to his stream of expletives.
To this day, I still don't know if it was part of the interview or the interviewer's working style. I learned a few new curse words and insults from the exchange, but mostly the signal to tell me I didn't want to work there.
Second this. Canonical is currently winning the race to the bottom for tech interviews (I'm speaking with a couple of decades of experience on both sides of the table). They use lots of AI on their side (of course, none allowed on your side). A strange focus on your school years. Dark patterns in technical questions with no opportunity to get clarity. Ghosting afterwards.
Interviews always involve some asymmetry but Canonical exploits that to the maximum.
Don't forget the exceptionally long interview cycles. I've heard some stories of candidates getting strung along for 6+ months to eventually get rejected.
Canonical spends a lot of money and effort to “scrub” negative reviews from glassdoor. At a minimum they reply to, and dismiss, concerns raised there but I recall mentions of ways to outright have some bad reviews deleted. Source: I worked there.
I had a pretty weird interview with this crazy french guy that after a couple of minutes, started acting like a telepreacher and demanding passion or something.
But the most frustrating one was with an attractive smiling girl that praised the founder as a genius, dismissed my experience and refused to talk money. She said the next step was a "group dynamics" with the team. I said no thanks. Cult.
In general, I get the job when I reach the technical guy. Except that time that, after being approved by the technical lead, I had a chat with the dept head, that asked some inane what are your hobbies questions and rejected me, really because of too high salary. Later the same company reached me, when he was replaced.
The mirror side of this is when almost all the intern applications/cover letters we used to receive contained a paragraph about the hobbies of the applicant (all domain-irrelevant). I find that weird but I guess it is sort of common nowadays?
I was involved with picking a candidate for an internship in 1999, we had three candidates and they all mentioned basketball on their resumes. I think it's just something to help the resume fill one page. And help provide a direction for a 'validate the resume' interview.
Sometimes, if the hobby shows leadership etc, it might be relevant even if the domain isn't.
I have a one-liner in my resumé that lists "interests." basketball, baseball, photography, music, the outdoors, privacy and digital human rights. With the heading, it takes up half an inch of paper on the second page, which I only provide in a PDF.
If anything in there is a disqualifier, I don't want to work for you anyway. If you need any more info than that, ditto.
Especially in recent graduate positions. I maybe won't make sense if the interviewee was 35 but if they're 21 there's just nothing else to talk about. That said, at least in software, the right answer still includes something about coding or building things.
I had an interview with a CTO back like 2 years ago, I already passed the 3-4 interviews 2 of which were technical and I am on this cultural fit interview with the CTO. The guy enters the call everything seems normal and he begins with his questions which were absolutely insane. First he asked me how did I improve in my work, since I work in cyber I explained to him that I am following latest trends, and getting security certificates like OffSec and other hands on stuff, even CTFs. He is not satisfied he asked me about specifics and to dive deep, okay.. I've explained to him how OSCP, OSWE and OSEP worked and possibly even shared some of the exam ranges scenarios, again he wasn't satisfied and asked for specifics I am already baffled and I was thinking "Does he want me to share the CTF flags or what". Anyway after back and forth with me saying that I don't understand what he wants me to say, he moves forward with "Now what about outside working hours". I sighed and explained that this is taking at least 90% of my free time as well, but he kept asking that he does not care about work and wants to know what I do outside work. Okay I play table tennis quite often and I train it, HE IS NOT SATISFIED (mind you he asked for specifics as well) and in the end he sighed and just said "so you are not improving outside work". I am on the verge of clicking the end meeting button but I kept going. Next question was, have I done any proactive work during work hours, I explained what I did, what tools I've written for the developers and he again asked for SPECIFICS, I said that at this point I am starting to worry about my NDA, and explained that I won't be sharing what I did specifically. He was frustrated and started explaining me that he does not know my clients or whatever or anything about me so it won't matter, which is absolutely laughable but I refused to share anything. Next thing he said is that I am bombing the interview and he has 0 value from this conversation, and I was like okay sure I didn't know that I should bring value into your company/you without even starting. He was now really frustrated started to use words like "fucking" and so on, explained to me how the interns in the company were having a better answers and how his mom would do a better job at this. I was like "???? lmao". Now telling you this I am not sure why I did not quit the meeting but here we go the next question, which I do not remember exactly but I distinctly remember that he said "that's a perfect answer". And since this is becoming long enough I would spare the rest of questions which were absurd once again. Needless to say that I wasn't chosen nor I would have chose them even if this was somehow a pass.
AI makes it trivial to narrow down who this company might have been despite the anonymized details. Mostly a heads up for future posters who want to truly avoid it.
I remember a moment in an early job interview. My resumé was all proper for this entry level junior position and everything was checking out. We turned to smalltalk to round up the interview.
"What sort of music do you like?"
(What sorta ques... you don't just throw this in without a warning. ahh I'm blanking out. What was it that I listened to last night??)
"Uhhh Mike Oldfield is one..."
"Ohh... (pause) ewww. But we won't let this hinder your application heh heh"
"hee..."
I got the position and rose to senior rather quickly. I didn't have any interactions with this guy since after this one interview. Maybe for the best. He didn't mean bad, he was just a bit out of his element 2nd-seat interviewing for devs.
I still remember an off-site team building event that I (luckily) skipped the first half of, where our tech lead tried to speed-run some intimacy building by going around and asking what everyone's biggest fear was.
I had just recently become a parent, and if you're a parent reading this, I'm pretty sure that we both have the exact same biggest fear in our lives - and it was absolutely not one I was willing to fucking share, even with those coworkers that I felt close to.
> And I think it’s worth sharing not because I want to shame the company or individuals (I’ve left them anonymous), but rather to suggest some reconsideration for founders and hiring managers in the same boat.
Now I want to know the name. Companies that use psycho-tactics should be known to us.
I hate to victim-blame because it's wrong, uncalled for, and also everyone has these kinds of lapses of reason and trip up. It happens to all of us.
That said, these job interviews aren't therapy sessions; they are roleplaying games where everyone must understand the rules and just pretend, so when they ask you "what's your biggest flaw" the only valid answer is "I'm too much of a perfectionist".
worst interview you had: but can't name the company.
exact reason why software engineering interviews will never improve. candidates due maybe desperation, lack of assertiveness or masochism - keep getting abused but won't take action.
name & shame. you get ghosted - or get a rejection email one day later. maybe start cutting interviews short too - if you don't see why you would wanna work at a place.
I've had that kind of interview. I kept avoiding the questions because it's not their business. He kept asking. I didn't get the job but that's fine.
I've always worked with people I don't mesh with. We fight with each other. We even yell sometimes. But that's ok. We don't need to be a family and in fact I feel major ick at the thought (weird polyamory shit) - they're gross. But they are competent and consistently bring us more customers.
This is a good life lesson to OP of the freedoms they have in these situations.
An interviewer can choose to ask whatever question they want (within legal boundaries).
You can also choose to answer however you want. The interviewer asked you to mentally drain yourself recounting trauma. You didn’t have to give them that.
“I appreciate your approach in asking about the most challenging day of my life. However, I’ll keep my answers in the scope of the workplace moving forward.”
The worst interview of my life was at Meta, and it was bad enough that I have permanently blacklisted them as a place I will /never/ work. I get contacted by Meta recruiters relatively often despite the fact I let them know after the fact that they were horribly unprofessional and I would never work with them after that experience (setting aside any ethical concerns, which I also have).
I've had several other bad interviews in my career though, and almost all of them were small companies / startups. It was also obvious, sometimes in the moment, that it was bad because the person interviewing me lacked the maturity, experience, or professionalism to be conducting interviews of anyone. Many times that person was the founder. I consider those all dodged bullets.
It's always important to remember that interviews are a two-way street, and the way someone conducts an interview can tell you a lot about them and about the organizational context they operate in. Do you want to work there?
had a similar unsolicited psych evaluation interview back in 2017 in twitter. There was a VP (or maybe director), who started with "go back in history and tell me what your boss at position X would say about you", and this kept happening for an hour.
Sounds like a behavioral interview that silicon valley sometimes uses - the questions are designed to ascertain how you deal with difficulty, stress, and certain situations which they absolutely can't legally ask about directly - they are looking for you to discuss challenging times where you succeeded by working harder, doing more than peers, etc. It's not about shaming you, and understanding what they are looking for and why is key - they want people who stick with them through difficult times that they anticipate having.
For interview questions like these, they can only tease about what they are really after - finding employees who "go the extra mile" or "stay late" or "don't give up in the face of adversity". They are looking for you to find evidence of these patterns to corroborate your story. If they drove you to the answer they were after, it wouldn't be a passing score in their interview summary write-up.
Agreed. Reading the rest of these comments are makes me feel crazy / like I’m missing something. It doesn’t sound like the interviewer was making the candidate divulge traumatic information - but rather assessing how they deal with adversity.
These are essentially sociopath screens where they expect you to memorize some STAR stories and regurgitate them on demand. And I don't mean screen out.
One when I was 19 was for a 3rd shift stocker at a "family business". Guy straight up asks "Are you married?". Sure, its illegal to ask. Not like a jobless 19 year old could do anything.
Ive had a few jobs claim "pay band was from x to y. And surprise it was x-20000 to y-50000.
One interview (an HN company) did the interviews. Got back round 2, seemed interesting. The "third round" was do like 20 hours of github work to prove me. Told them my going rate was $100/hr. Never heard back, surprise surprise. Cant remember the company.
Applied to Oxide. They want a whole litany of crap filled out. And what do you get? A form letter 2 months later. Should have slop'ed it. I guess this doent really count, since it wasnt EVEN an interview.
Sorry to hear that you viewed it as a "litany of crap", but if it's of any solace, if you had slopped it, the result would not have been immediately different -- but you would be marked in our system in such a way that subsequent applications would also be disqualified.
It sounds like we're not a fit for you either, though, so maybe just as well!
I'm not sure what else you're looking for; we are already explicit about the fact that we (like YC!) don't give detailed feedback. If you would like to DM me, I will look at the reviews of your materials and tell you what I can tell you -- but I think it's pretty clear that you and Oxide aren't really a fit for one another?
I have a two way tie for the worst interviews I've ever had, for very different reasons.
First, in 2023 I interviewed for a startup as a lead architect.
They had me do some virtual whiteboard stuff, and so I was drawing rectangles and cylinders and mentioning things like "database" and "message queues" as generically as I could.
They would interrupt me and say stuff like "Which message queue? Where do you download that?". The interview went on for a long time, with many bizarrely-specific questions for a whiteboard interview, but I figured that it was just their way to make sure that candidates didn't bullshit them by handwaving away important details.
They did make me an offer a few days later, but not for as much as I wanted. That's fine, no hard feelings over that.
But then a week later the CEO emails me asking for technical help on a question. I was on the train when I got it. I don't remember the exact question but it was something to do with RabbitMQ and Redis, and it was pretty easy, so I just typed out a quick answer to my phone and replied without even really thinking about it. Then another half-hour later he responds back to my reply asking for more detail on everything.
After his last reply I sent a response like "I am happy enough to continue this conversation but I'm afraid I will need to start billing the time it takes for me to reply. Give me a call and we can discuss the rate.
He didn't reply.
And then I realized something: this company was using interviews as unpaid consulting. That's why they were asking for bizarrely-specific stuff during the interview, and that's why the CEO was still trying to get free consulting out of me even afterward.
Really pissed me off, and I am very glad I didn't accept their offer. I am generally a person who is happy to help answer technical questions for free [1], but I felt like my trusting nature was kind of weaponized.
---------
Second was last year at a big bank.
I was really excited for this job, so I showed up to the interview in my best (and only) suit, made sure everything looked nice, and had studied for many of the technical questions I thought they were likely to ask the previous night.
Off to a bad start, it was one of the hottest days in NYC of the year, and I sweat a lot by nature, so in combination with the full suit, by the time I got to the building I was already kind of drenched in sweat.
Once I get in, they start giving me some conceptual algorithm questions on the whiteboard. I don't remember the exact question, but I remember they asked the runtime complexity of my solution and I said "Looks like O(n + log m) where n is the length of list A and m is the length of list B". One of the interviewers very confidently corrects me an says "You got your n and m backward".
I look at the board, go through my solution, and, no, I actually hadn't gotten the variables backward.
I have no idea what you're supposed to do in a situation where you're right and the interviewer is wrong [2], so I just do a trace through my solution and explain that, no, my variables were appropriately assigned. He still confidently "corrected" me again.
At this point I really don't know what I'm supposed to do, because I'm not going to just lie and say "oh you're right", but if I'm wrong, then I do want to know why so I don't repeat the mistake in the future. So I ask him "Ok, let's trace through this again because I really don't think my understanding is wrong here".
It was this bizarre gaslighting experience, because he would agree with every premise of why I thought the answer was O(n + log m), and every reasoning step along the way, but then still insisted I got the answer wrong. I do really know my Big O complexity, I have been doing this for a very long time, so eventually I just said something like "I guess we need to agree to disagree" because my time for that interview was almost up.
Then there was another interview immediately afterward. The interviewer started asking me very specific questions about Java Spring MVC (like about which annotations to use and whatnot)
Now, I don't have Java Spring on my resume, I haven't touched Java Spring in more than a decade, and Java Spring was not in the job listing. I didn't even consider studying Spring MVC because the listing didn't even mention that this would be web-based.
So I tell the guy something like "umm, I don't really know Spring. I know how a web request works so I'm happy to answer conceptual questions on the whiteboard, but I'm afraid I would have to learn the specific syntax".
And he responded "Well this is not a junior role. You shouldn't have to learn."
So of course I get the specific Spring questions wrong, and fine, if they wanted a person who knew Spring, that's ok, even if they should have put that in the job posting.
But then he asked me to, on the whiteboard, design a basic web request where there was a global counter [3]. I use an AtomicLong, which to my understanding is what pretty much every human who writes Java uses for counters.
He asked me why I used an AtomicLong, and I said "because it's what everyone uses, and because it doesn't block and because compare and swap for a small surface area like that is pretty cheap".
The guy then, corrected me, and told me to use a mutex. I said "I don't think a mutex is necessary here, if it's just a counter I think an atomic is fine."
He was very insistent, and told me to rewrite it with a mutex, and at this point I am starting to question my own competence, so I yield and just rewrite it with a ReentrantLock, which he again "corrected" me saying that I should use `synchronized`, and at that I push back and say "no, ReentrantLock is fine".
I left the interview feeling like a moron; I was so sure about this stuff before, but maybe I didn't have the understanding I thought I did.
I'm friends with a few graybeard C and C++ programmers on Discord, so when I got home I told them the questions and asked them how they'd solve them, and they solved the problems in the same way I would have.
Then I realized that this interviewer, who was principal level, didn't know what an atomic was, and I think he also had no idea how to use ReentrantLock, and so when I used them he just assumed I was wrong. Moron.
[1] And that's still true; feel free to email me if you want to geek out about software :)
[2] And it seems like the answer I get for that varies between each person. I'm not sure anyone knows.
[3] With, to be clear, no further arithmetic or anything being applied to it, before someone asks.
> Off to a bad start, it was one of the hottest days in NYC of the year, and I sweat a lot by nature, so in combination with the full suit, by the time I got to the building I was already kind of drenched in sweat.
You'd need a Summer-weight suit for this to be at-all comfortable. "High-twist wool" and "unlined" or "half-lined" are your search terms. Silk-wool blends also OK. Other fabric options for warm weather open up in some contexts (linen and linen/wool/silk/cotton blends, warm-weather cotton weaves like seersucker, maybe even rayon though that's a bit niche) but probably not if you're looking to dress for an interview at a bank in New York. Part of why suits are in-practice expensive and inconvenient (and why only-occasional wearers judge them unpleasant to wear—not unreasonably, given their exposure to them) is that you need at-minimum one set for moderate-and-lower temps ("three-season"), and another set for hot days.
I have one unlined high-twist wool navy blazer that's so cool it's actually kind of a problem because offices often have their AC cranked up on hot days. I end up needing an overcoat or second, winter-weight jacket indoors, LOL. Hold the thing up to a light and it looks like a star field seen from outside the Earth's atmosphere, dark with endless dots of light, so air goes right through it.
The problem seems to be that you treated a professional job interview like a therapy session and showed yourself to be a person who brings up situationally inappropriate subjects without a filter.
> I’m a little ashamed remembering myself talking about failed relationships, family struggles
It sucks what happened, but, yeah, you need to establish filters for yourself. No matter what they ask you, it's an absolutely terrible idea to bring up your failed relationships in an interview. Something tells me they did not ask for that private information specifically and you just decided it would be a good idea to volunteer it, otherwise the story would have said so.
It does not matter what you think they asked. You are the one in control of the words that come out of your mouth. This was poor judgement all around.
This… was a mistake on both you and the interviewer.
All interview questions - unless it’s impossible to twist your answer to fit this - is scoped to “… at work”. Nobody who asks “tell me about yourself” is asking you to talk about how you met your partner, how many cats you have, or that experience you had, that one time, at band camp. It would be redundant and awkward to literally say “… at work” at the end of every question. It’s totally 100% the intent of the interviewer.
This is interviewing 101 and unless this is your first ever interview I would find it odd, and stop you immediately and say “I meant, worst day at work”. They should’ve done that.
Unless they explicitly and unambiguously say “tell me about the day your mom and dog died in the same day when you found out you had cancer” they mean “tell me about your worst day _at work_.” And even if they ask about the time your dog died (they won’t), they are not asking you “tell me about the worst day you’ve had in your life”. They are asking “tell me about a time you experienced adversity and overcame it, exhibiting problem solving, resilience, and grit AT WORK. (Or - if you are operating in executive mode or you like to live dangerously - some non-work context that maps obviously and unambiguously to a work context).”
You failed the “knows how to interact with people in a professional setting” part of the interview. Or the “this person knows how to interview” part (which generally, but not always, correlates with experience and emotional maturity). Or the “read between the lines” part.
Yeah, inartfully asked questions - but also totally flubbed the answers.
Sorry, chalk it up to you had a bad interview or day or whatever, and never, ever forget the entire thing is scoped to “…. at work”.
I was also part of this sort of interview once. They specifically asked personal questions - parents stuff, relationship, etc. Definitely not work related. It was indeed a very strange and exhausting experience. I could've definetly refused to answer some of the questions or drop out of the interview altogether, but not sure why I haven't.
So yeah, this type of interview exists so I highly doubt the interviewer interviewing OP was asking about work stuff...
> They specifically asked personal questions - parents stuff, relationship, etc.
In the US any employer who asks you about personal relationships during an interview is opening themselves up to an illegal discrimination lawsuit.
Which protected characteristic does "personal relationships" fall under? It's vague enough to mean almost anything you want it to be, and I struggle to imagine any sort of successful prosecution.
There’s a reason interviewers in the US won’t (or shouldn’t) even ask if the candidate has a spouse. If they ask something about that specifically, and the answer indicates some kind of protected status (a man says “my husband” or reveal which place of worship they got married in) and they then decline the candidate, the candidate could make the claim they were denied because they’re gay or practice whatever religion or something else.
Asking personal questions could be seen as a way to elicit information about a protected status and thus give a rejected candidate ammunition for a claim, whether warranted or not.
It’s best to just keep questions focused on the workplace.
I think people vastly overstate the amount of actual risk companies are taking when they engage is possibly illegal behavior, especially on this forum.
Likely true, and I’m sure many companies go unpunished despite engaging in it, but that doesn’t make it a good idea, and probably the kind of thing that could ruin a small business if they did get caught up in it.
Having been on the sidelines for spurious claims of this nature, these sorts of lawsuits are a huge risk: the cost of mounting a defense can easily bankrupt a small business, even if the claims turn out to be baseless.
Even in the case of complete innocence, it often becomes a he-said-she-said situation, and the outcome boils down to which side presents the best set of “facts”.
I use quotes there because my broader experience with the court system routinely shows that it does not need be burdened by the “truth” or “facts”. That is probably because the regular cast in those venues are literally trained and practiced liars.
I think it also depends on how big of a company. If someone (say perhaps, GP) mostly has experience in smaller companies, they might not have had the law of large numbers bring the lawsuit cudgel to bear on their company before.
But if you're at a large enough company, you're absolutely getting sued for this from time to time, so you'll have the "how to not get sued" training before you're allowed to interview.
(Edit: this isn't limited to interviews. There's many, many examples of things that large companies will not touch due to legal risk, that smaller companies will... either due to lack of knowledge on the legal risk (maybe no legal department even exists yet?) or intentionally as a gamble)
Never ever prompt someone to discuss personal relationships in an interview. The moment the conversation drifts into religion, family status, child count, sexuality or gender makeup, or any number of other things, you can easily run afoul of state or federal laws, or open yourself to discrimination lawsuits.
Discrimination of sexual orientation, for example, depending on how it's asked. Just one of those areas best left alone in an interview
Women in a committed relationship can enter a medical situation that renders then unable to work for 6-9 months, + 2 - 3 years of leave afterwards. Men don't, that's just a month or two twice.
It is illegal, and in my book also immoral to deny such a candidate, but the other side of the coin is there.
Employer fishing to see if the person is married, which will require additional dependents on health insurance. Married is possibly more likely to have kids and take more time off for them or maternity/paternity leave.
Even just an IQ test [1] or teacher licensing test [2,3] opens them to illegal discrimination, so that's not saying much.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.
[2] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/black-latino-teachers-...
[3] https://teachercertification.com/nystce/multi-subject-arts-a...
Working in selection, I can say it’s more nuanced than that. Any measurement can be used as long as it is relevant to the business and related to performance. For example, you’re fine to reject people based on height if you’re hiring basketball players and being higher predicts scoring more points. Or even reject people based on gender (or other protected classes) if you can demonstrate that that specific group is absolutely necessary for you e.g. you want a counselor working with sexual trauma survivors and have evidence that matching patients to counselor on gender gives meaningfully better results for said patients.
The specific cases you mention and the finer point is how do you demonstrate the necessity of a measure? Is high general IQ absolutely necessary for SWEs? Or is it enough to have a high logical reasoning, but don’t need spatial? Do you really need high IQ or is it enough to have a lot of practical experience with hands on skills? Do you need higher IQ to do zero to one development vs code maintenance? The devil’s always in the details with these kinds of questions, and it’s definitely not a blanket “you can’t use anything”.
Yeah if you're willing to go into a decade-long court fight then maybe they'll allow you to use a test (where the burden of proof is on the employer to show the test is necessary, i.e. guilty until proven innocent). Or maybe you'll be liable for millions of dollars in compensation. And even something as seemingly reasonable as an IQ test for a knowledge work position is illegal.
IQ testing in white collar US employment is not unlawful and several household name companies openly perform general cognitive assessments; the companies that provide those tests have logo crawls just like every other product company. Griggs doesn't say what you think it says.
IQ testing is uncommon in US employment because it doesn't do a good job of selecting candidates, not because it's unlawful.
I once had an interviewer ask me, several years back, about the religious affiliations of my college.
It's supposed to mean "at work," but that doesn't at all mean that you can assume the interviewer is going to understand that.
Legally, asking personal questions in an interview that are unrelated to the job is a huge minefield, ie, you could be opening the company to discrimination lawsuits. Huge red flag that the company isn't very professional.
The minefield is enormous but there are only like five or six mines in it and they're all really well marked. It's something adults navigate every day.
I don't actually care about personal details, I'm just looking for a topic you can use to explain your point of view for a few minutes.
Besides the point about separating personal and work life, there's the aspect of having the self-respect to maintain your own privacy.
You wouldn't answer deep personal questions from a random stranger on the street. Some questions might've been too invasive to answer were even some family and friends to ask them. Yet, it seems they felt like they should answer some interviewer they just met.
It's ultimately the responsibility of the person answering to select what and how much of themselves to share, depending on the relationship.
If the interviewer were to ask, "tell me your most embarrassing moment you had while having sex with someone", you wouldn't answer that. If they asked "tell me about the hardest day of your life" and the real, real answer was somehow that time you had that embarrassing moment while having sex with someone, you still wouldn't answer that. You would answer with what you'd be comfortable sharing with the random interviewer, if anything, else you can just decline the question.
The "embarrassing sex" is an exaggerated example. You can set your limits differently, in order to not feel
> completely emotionally drained
as the OP put it. Setting your limits such that your personal life is outside of what your comfortable sharing with the random interviewer would be appropriate.
GP comment on separating personal and work life said to imagine they tacked "... at work" at the end. You can also imagine "... that you're comfortable with sharing" as a more general rule.
Doesn’t that open them to discrimination lawsuits?
If they’re specifically asking about personal things like that then those are very inappropriate interview questions.
Rejecting the question is actually how you pass. Open with "I leave everything private at home when at work hence my answer for the work position is: [here the answer but scoped and formulated to your work life and NOT to your private life]".
Rejecting the company that attempts to put you through this kind of interview is how you pass.
Remember that interviews are 2-way. You don’t have to engage in someone’s bad faith or incompetent interviewing.
You don't want to pass an interview like that.
Its an effective way to sort out those candidates who are not able to leave private stuff at home.
It’s absolutely not. Putting people in a vulnerable position and then pressing them for information you don’t need and should not ask for is a good way to demonstrate that you are an unethical or at best incompetent interviewer.
It might be a good way filter for candidates that have a high tolerance for being mistreated, though, if that’s the goal.
If an interviewer, who has the power to deny you a job unless your answers are satisfactory to them, is unprofessional enough to abuse that by pressing you for inappropriate personal details during the interview, then there actually is no correct answer.
You can't assume that person is going to act in good faith about anything else in that situation, so even refusing to take the bait is still ultimately a roulette wheel that can just as easily be labeled as "difficult" or "combative."
If it would be unprofessional to bring those things up freely, then it's actually more unprofessional to coerce people about them as a screening criteria -- whether that's coercing them into putting on a show of dancing around the issues, or coercing them into giving you honest answers.
Also a great way for candidates to filter out employers who play bizarre mind games and think personal trick questions are appropriate in an interview.
Literally he’s saying to behave inappropriately in a professional interview and see if the candidate plays along. Might as well see if you can get the candidate to offer a bribe or sexual favors for the job since we’re going all in on entrapment.
The opposite. Are you breaking the rule to leave your private stuff home just because the other side is or are you capable of keeping out of such sources of interpersonal conflicts, take over and redirect the discussion back to a professional level?
Of course it depends for what field and role you apply. For any leading role or customer contact point the capability to stay professional is essential. If you flip burgers at McDonald's then it's your right to be grumpy.
You are literally saying it’s a good idea to attempt to entrap potential employees by intentionally behaving the way you want them to not. It’s like pouring margaritas for you and the interviewee and then after they take a sip you say you don’t hire people who drink on the job.
This is unethical and it’s also a shitty filter because they people you want to hire (the ones why won’t talk personal stuff at work; or won’t drink on the job) are likely to write you off because they also don’t want to work with the guy who wants to drink margaritas and chat personal trauma at work.
I am literally saying that the role the person applied to was for a "founding engineer at a mental health startup".
This is a leading role(!) in the mental health(!!) industry. That should give some clues. They also announced that the follow-up interview as a "non traditional - a ~90 minute culture fit chat" dropping more hints.
Unfortunately he also "fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics".
I bet the exact wording was open enough to leave enough room to not "felt completely emotionally drained" afterwards.
I think the interviewer did him a favor. He is just not able to handle a leading role in the mental health industry in a way that would have been mental healthy for him.
At that point, I think I would have just started making things up or telling stories from other people I knew. Some random interviewer has literally no right to be asking me personal questions so I have no problem improvising some fun answers for them.
my father was a turd miner in virginia and his father was a goat ball licker (c) Stephen Colbert
And even if, for the sake of argument, they legitimately did ask about your personal life instead of your work life... you normally wouldn't answer any of that. (In fact, it could very well mean the end of the interview, from the interviewee's side.)
That's vastly overstepping commonly accepted boundaries. Sure, some surface level smalltalk is normal and expected: "Any hobbies? Ah, you like hiking? Nice. Where do you like to hike? Oh, I did that, too. Might I suggest hiking there and there? I bet you'd like it. Anyway, moving on!" Common ground helps conversations flow.
But an employer asking about your personal relationships? Your needs, fears, and desires outside of any technical context? (My needs, fears, and desires from compiler toolchains are totally within scope.) Your traumata? That's a level of intrusiveness crossing into "rude" territory. They have no business of asking.
Some good points. Just a heads-up about something interesting I heard/read in training...
"Innocuous" icebreaker questions about hobbies, the weekend, or whatever, can be surprisingly problematic.
The questions and answers often inadvertently imply things about family status, religion, physical ability/disability, socioeconomic class, age, heritage, etc. that interviews are supposed to steer clear of.
For me, this was best illustrated by one of the https://www.linkedin.com/in/lornaerickson/ funny video skits, in which the interviewer character was using "innocuous icebreaker" chat aggressively to try to extract information all over the no-no list of things you aren't supposed to ask.
(Then the skit was funny again, after the fact, when I was in an interview with some barely-out-of-school founder, who was intentionally doing one of the things from the skit...)
> The questions and answers often inadvertently imply things about family status, religion, physical ability/disability, socioeconomic class, age, heritage, etc. that interviews are supposed to steer clear of.
I had a bizarre interview (at an extremely well-known company with an eccentric, controversial founder) where the recruiter asked me directly questions that "BigTech interview training" explicitly taught me to never ask or even walk close to. I was actually shocked and stammered out an awkward "Uhh, I'm pretty sure it's fraught with risk to even ask those things" non-answer, but she seemed genuinely surprised I wouldn't go into personal family details during a professional job interview. So, it seems not everyone has gotten the memo...
Good points. My hypothetical had the implicit assumption that the interviewer was acting in good faith when asking the weekend question. But that doesn't mean that interviewers necessarily are, of course.
Yeah, and even in good faith, the questions can be problematic.
Example: At the very start of the interview, candidate suddenly feels like they have to hide something about their religion, sexual orientation, or whatever, in how they answer. Or feels like their candid answer to the icebreaker was not received well.
Which is the opposite of what the interviewer intended, with an icebreaker, but their training didn't include how tricky casual icebreakers can be.
Why would you want to work somewhere that you can't talk about your life, the things that bring you joy, your hobbies? Sounds miserable.
Plenty of time to talk about your life and hobbies once hired. If I’ve got 45 minutes to make a recommendation based on an evaluation, I don’t want to base any of that on your relationship/family status or pets, I certainly don’t want to give the impression that maybe I did that, and therefore, I don’t want to spend any time talking about it in the interview.
You can talk about it at work, after you're hired, like with your coworkers. The company can't ask you about a lot of things in an interview without exposing them to a significant amount of legal liability.
Just an aside:
> Sure, some surface level smalltalk is normal and expected: [...] Common ground helps conversations flow.
`smalltalk` is a misleading term for an interesting form of protocol negotiation.
>Your traumata? That's a level of intrusiveness crossing into "rude" territory
OP didn't say that, he said "hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges" and then characterized it (his opinion) 'similar “trauma-baiting” questions'
asking a young person (I don't know that he was young, just saying) "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard question. Like on a college application, they expect you to answer it. Young people often don't have enough other experience to fall back on, and in a context in which you are expected to make yourself look good, the filter that is expected is to emphasize something that you were successful/resourceful at.
> "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard
I would suggest that this is a misremembering. As someone who's hosted thousands of interviews at companies big and small, all of the questions were scoped to professional work. Why? because when you ask things like "what was the hardest day in your life" you have a non-trivial chance of getting your interviewee tell you about the time they saw someone die, cleaned up a suicide attempt, or developed a new fear. That or you see someone make something up on the spot.
Its just not a useful question. If they answer honestly, then they are going to just going to remember that sad feeling of re-living trauma. If they don't answer honestly, they are more than likely going to be pissed off at the weird prying question.
These questions are emotionally expansive, you could have been getting on really well, shared a joke, had a great conversation. All of that will be blotted out by remembered pain.
The reason why people ask "can you tell me a time you overcame a big obstacle to achieve a business outcome" is threefold:
1) can you describe a blocker with the right amount if context
2) can you talk about improving things without insulting the people blocking you
3) can you think of ways to non-destructively overcome problems
Asking about when your pet died doesn't give you useful information
Asking this sort of question is not great in professional context either.
Someone working for the police could say: "Yeah, my boss made me clean up a triple homicide."
Or a janitor at a fast food could say: "We found a dead addict in the toilets."
Like these are all profession related answers. Yet they are not answers you want. Stop asking dumb questions.
Morbid curiosity is a thing, even if professional setting. I only know one person who got this kinds of questions when they applied for forensic technician jobs, collecting remains of dead bodies and such.
I don't really like it either.
I much prefer asking about things the candidate would take from or actively avoid from the previous job.
> asking a young person (I don't know that he was young, just saying) "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard question
Is that true? Is that a cultural thing that I do not get? I am in the same boat as OP and consider these questions, if intended for no-work specific context, very inappropriate. The age is irrelevant. If you are interviewing a young applicant who is not expected to have work experience, ask them about sth in the school context instead of work context.
Young people can still have really bad experiences. Especially when you interview a big number of people, you are guaranteed to fall upon some pretty bad. It seems to me that the right expected way to answer such a question is to find some personal experience that is bad, but not _that bad_, and then try to flip it and show you persevered. It seems to me that you are selecting for people who are better in making up stories this way, than anything else, because there is very often no way to answer such a question in any truthful, factual manner.
Personally I would only give answers in a work related context, and make sure to be clear that this is the way I interpreted the question.
> asking a young person (I don't know that he was young, just saying) "what was the hardest day of your life" is a pretty standard question. Like on a college application, they expect you to answer it.
This is not a standard job interview question at all.
In fact if you tried asking this at any company with a legal or HR team, you'd get pulled out of interviewing people until they could train you appropriate job interview questions.
Keeping in mind the context of the original parent comment, yes it is 100% standard to ask about the "hardest day of your [working] life." I wouldn't ever put it like that, but asking about difficult challenges and how you overcame them is completely normal. The blog post reads to me as someone who is oblivious about the subtext of these questions.
When I ask that kind of question, I'm not asking you to share about a breakup, or death of a parent, or some other non-working issue, and I would think it very inappropriate for you to do so (thus, the quick rejection email). Instead, I'm asking about how you navigated losing all your code due to a backup issue or how you dealt with a difficult client or coworker or even some problem at work that threw you for a loop for weeks. That's the subtext of these questions, as the original commentator also made quite clear.
> Instead, I'm asking about how you navigated losing all your code due to a backup issue or how you dealt with a difficult client or coworker or even some problem at work that threw you for a loop for weeks.
Cubicle drama, hey?
Easy stuff. I've got a million+ SLOC behind me, no real cubicle stories worthy of note resulting, just had a few days at work clearing air strips at high altitude in Papua, had to work for a couple of weeks at gunpoint after one of our lovely clients detonated a nuclear device near enough our plane for the shock wave to affect the flight dynamics, nearly lost a whole boat to a fire under the kerosene filled float cables in the Spratly Islands region (after getting boarded constantly by various gunboats).
All good though.
I think you have to take into account context of the blog post where author was in the interview for “mental health startup”.
> Keeping in mind the context of the original parent comment, yes it is 100% standard to ask about the "hardest day of your [working] life."
The original comment says:
> Like on a college application, they expect you to answer it.
I don't know if that changes your interpretation, but if the other replies are any indication, yours is not the default.
> yes it is 100% standard to ask about the "hardest day of your [working] life."
The comment I was responding to was saying that the question was about your non-working life, and that it’s normal to do so.
You’re trying to argue something else. I’m only saying that interviews questions about your personal life are out of scope.
It is 100% not standard to ask questions about someone’s personal life.
I think I didn't quite catch the layout here. I thought you were responding to KaiserPro above, so mea culpa. I agree that asking about one's personal life is not (or rarely is) appropriate. I think the blog author thought that was the case, but was mistaken.
Well, I have no idea what they actually specifically asked or didn't ask, because the article is light on details. So I just elaborated on what I consider crossing into unacceptable (which I believe is based on commonly shared conventions), and everyone can draw their own conclusions for any particular situation.
The job is described as "founding engineer at a mental health startup".
Generally getting called in for a "founding engineer" interview is code for a company that doesn't have money for a full salary but hopes they'll find someone willing to work for some token equity grant. These jobs usually come with amateur founders who aren't good at hiring. They could have really been pushing for life experiences, thinking they were doing some breaking-the-mold interview technique.
I do agree that every candidate should know to deliver answers in the context of a work interview. Even when the interviewer starts asking personal questions, you bring it back to something related to the job every time. Everything that comes out of your mouth should have a focus of showing how you'll work well at this company because you've worked well in the past at other companies.
The interviewers may have been shocked when someone didn't know this and actually unloaded their personal life struggles without a filter. I bet every other candidate they talked to had been giving interview-appropriate answers so they didn't realize how broken their questions were.
Chalk it up to a learning experience. I am certain you didn't miss out on any great opportunity with these amateurs. You will probably never see them again. We all have embarrassing work experiences at some point, but this is a good one to learn from and then promptly try to forget.
> This is interviewing 101 and unless this is your first ever interview I would find it odd, and stop you immediately and say “I meant, worst day at work”. They should’ve done that.
They don’t like it when I tell them about the day I performed CPR on a guy who jumped from the roof of the office building across the street.
>It would be redundant and awkward to literally say “… at work” at the end of every question. It’s totally 100% the intent of the interviewer.
you are stating your opinion as fact, and I don't think there is a basis beyond your opinion, you simply don't know.
I agree with you the interviewee could have handled the questions better to not be so revealing about himself, setting boundaries the interviewer was crossing, but it might have been precisely the intent of the mental health company interviewer to elicit responses like that to stay away from emotionally wounded people.
Adding “this is my opinion” to every post would be tedious, rt? :-)
Another pro tip for interviews: even if they explicitly ask for something like "the worst day of your life, including personal circumstances not at work", just answer about work anyways. You don't have to answer every question as posed. Pretend the worst day of your life was at work and was work related. There are a lot of interview questions asked as bait. If someone asks "What is your greatest weakness?", you better not respond with your actual greatest weakness.
As an autistic person, it's nonsense like this that has made me dread every interview I've ever done.
In my understanding, interviewers expect sth like:
> What is your greatest weakness?
> I am too good at my work
This is a common misunderstanding, and I don't want to sound like I'm blaming you for it, but it's based on a misconception of how the process works.
What interviewers are looking for is genuine introspection of the kind a high-quality hire would be expected to have. One answer I've given before, for example, is that I instinctively focus too deeply on technical requirements; I have to regularly prompt myself to answer "why does the customer care", or I get too deep into the details and end up with solutions that fail to serve their needs. The fact that I can recognize this weakness and take action to mitigate it is a positive signal.
What interviewers are looking to avoid is terrible answers that reveal underlying flaws or show you can't introspect at all. "I don't have any weaknesses", "I have trouble dealing with dumb people who give me bad ideas", "I get frustrated when people come to me with problems but don't explain what program I should write to solve them", etc.
Lame, humble-bragging answers are not the intent of the question and will not impress the interviewer, but probably won't prevent you from being hired if the interview otherwise went great. So maybe they're useful strategically if you're worried about giving a bad answer.
This 100%. An actual honest answer got me my first post-academia job. I had originally tried the "I'm introspective, so I actively work on any problems I find." When I could tell the interviewer was not impressed with that answer, I just fessed up. "I'm impatient." Not only was the honesty refreshing, but the interviewer shared the same problem. It was a nice bonding moment.
I don’t think “I focus too much on technical requirements” is a great weakness. That’s pretty much a standard pitfall most technical people would fit into. A greatest weakness is “I procrastinate a lot and wait til the last moment to get started on a project and often miss deadlines” or “I have a lot of conflict with teammates I disagree with”. Your answer is an example of exactly what I’m talking about, something that can be construed as a weakness but is actually kind of a strength because it shows you’re detail oriented.
Also, if you have a good interviewer, they will respect humility. Not all interviewers are good.
That's not correct. You are expected to actually share a weekend and how you're handling it
> is scoped to "… at work"
It should be but nothing guarantees you from meeting an interviewer that somehow misunderstands their role and then you will be in a situation when you need to choose what to do next: try to be open or resist. Once during an interview (for a software engineer position) I was asked if I had a family and when I replied that I didn't, I was asked why. You might be able to cut it down in an appropriate way but in a situation of stress (which a job interview represents of course) you might not.
> I was asked if I had a family and when I replied that I didn't, I was asked why.
In Blighty, that would surely have garnered a response along the lines of 'they were all lost in an industrial accident involving a steamroller and a packet of Lurpak'.
"I lost both parents. ... I was careless."
> Or the “this person knows how to interview” part (which generally, but not always, correlates with experience and emotional maturity).
I think that "generally..." is a little harsh.
The person might just not have worked in a stereotypical corporate drone environment before.
Or they might normally have been able to handle the corporate drone interview theatre, but are overextended by the context (e.g., laid off in this job market, which can easily be more stressful and existential than most actual work situations), and a bad interview hazing just yanks on that.
There's going to be more and more overstressed people showing up to tech job interviews, and people on the other side of the table will need empathy and understanding, if they're going to make good assessments despite the context.
Thank you; you’re right - context matters and now more than ever there are a ton of folks looking involuntarily. Grace is always needed, but now especially.
Absolutely not. I've been in an interview like this, and the interviewer specifically prompted me for for personal struggles, which I had to then fake having been way more affected over '"friends" asked me to take a photo so I'd be out of it' type incident than I actually was, just to satisfy them.
"... at work" expectation in an interview advertised as non-technical can be ableist screening anyways. Gonna poke that elephant since you're drapping it.
I was being interviewed by two owners of a small engineer firm. They asked, "tell us where you see yourself in 5 years". I rambled for ~30 seconds about marrying my girlfriend and other personal details. I still remember their faces; super awkward, and then they slowly clarified: "we meant professionally" hahaha. It ended up fine in the end, but I feel like there's probably some missing education on social culture of interviewing somewhere and you just have to have those experiences at some point to understand.
These aren't at all the same thing though.
A candidate can be aware that these kinds of questions are supposed to have boundaries, but that's different from whether an interviewer understands or respects that. And if they don't, those people are also in a decision-making capacity that doesn't often empower you to just say "no."
Even when those things are scoped to "...at work," there are still answers that happen at work that are equally inappropriate to go digging for. "Tell me about a time you experienced adversity," for instance, could turn up health or family details that people might have juggled with their jobs -- things that you aren't actually supposed be considering as a factor in these decisions.
I also don't know, when someone is spending 90min screening you for "culture fit," that you can assume they're asking you for things that are strictly related to the job. They should be, but that's different from whether that's always a realistic presumption you can make.
What about when they ask you to prepare something that is definitely worded as you should talk 5min about a random non-tech (so kinda explicitly non-work) topic (with some examples like poems and songs iirc) and then they are completely weirded out when you talk about a hobby?
But it was also part of the worst interview I have ever had and these misguided 5 minutes for a weird intro were on the low end of the wtf scale.
From the way this is written, it's clear that the interview was not about "at work". If it was the interview would have stopped OP to say it after the first question, which obviously didn't happen.
I think this is a very cultural thing. When I interview candidates at my current job, we are interested in hearing about their life outside of work, since we want to know how we can best collaborate
If they have to pick up their kids in the afternoon, then it's probably better that they work closer with the other parents than of they're late risers who prefer coming to the office at 10
If the interviewer was fishing around for information for when I start work or if I have kids, the only thing that'd come to mind is whether they're trying to frame me as a slacker to disqualify me from the interview process.
Maybe the above is an European thing.
I think it is. My hunch is that in most EU countries the labor laws are good enough that, in general, it just doesn't become a problem.
I don't even remember (been a while since I did lots of interviews) if you're allowed or not allowed to ask any of the aforementioned things but I can tell you from experience that about half the candidates would mention their partner and/or kids anyway, because it just is usually not a problem. But it's not such standard fare that someone not mentioning would raise a flag either. I guess most of us just don't think about it.
Also, tech is a bit different and I am not that old - but in Germany you could see a ton of personal details absolutely no one is interested in on CVs, but it's getting better. (What your parents do for work, if you are married, what name you had before marrying, if you have a driver's license for a desk job, what primary school you went to, etc.pp)
I don't know where are you from or where do you work, but this sounds like a big "no-no" in an interview setting if you are based in Europe.
It's totally something you can bring up later, when already hired, if the job description made clear that it gives you flexible working hours.
An employer making career-affecting decisions for their employees based on whether they have kids or not sounds like a great way to get sued.
That said, I have been asked if I had kids, in an interview. Later in my career, when I was trained to perform interviews, I was explicitly told to NEEEEEVER ask that. And if the candidate volunteers it, to basically pretend you didn't hear it.
What if the team they're interviewing for doesn't has any parents. I think probably it is fine to ask about their life/interests outside of work. But if the interviewee isn't comfortable answering those it is better not to push
This sounds more like post-hiring admin, unless you're discriminating against parents?
Do you experience many "life challenges" at work?
"The follow-up, they described over email, would be a bit non traditional - a ~90 minute culture fit chat"
"I fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics, but they were, in fact, non-technical"
"This person gave the impression that it was a safe space to share"
I mean yes, the correct way would have been to politely decline to answer - but it very much reads as the intention of the interviewer was to get into all the personal stuff, to better evaluate - and sueing them possibly the right move.
Or at uni, at work-likes (volunteering, toastmasters etc.). It has to be in the pursuit of a commercial-like goal really. But yeah avoid friends, family, travel, pets...
> It’s totally 100% the intent of the interviewer.
If the interviewer did in fact share their personal trauma story as the author says then it would seem to indicate that was what they were asking for.
I know of places where that kind of sharing was the norm.
I'm prepared to give the author the benefit of the doubt here. We weren't there and maybe they really were asking what the hardest day of their life was. Your take is the author is completely incapable of basic communication, essentially.
If you're interviewing, you get that kind of mismatched response and don't jump in to clarify the scope of the question, I'm not sure that says much about the culture you're supposed to fit into.
I’m inclined to believe that you are being too charitable to the interviewers. This is an early stage mental health startup. They totally could have been asking very personal questions. I believe this used to be standard when interviewing psychoanalysts. They could have stopped the author at any time too. That would be the most natural thing. I’m inclined to believe that it was a clown show and they conducted borderline abusive interviews. Shame on them. But also, beware early stage startups. It’s a real roll of the dice and the dice are weighted against you.
> never, ever forget the entire thing is scoped to “…. at work”
I think the mental health startup part and the wide scope of the questions (hardest day in life, not hardest day in career) made it clear that this meant what it said.
You're so right, i prefer my colleagues perfectly mentally healthy, can't have these issues around!
.... why can we never find hires?
I think people (especially HR) need to realize we all pretend to be mentally sounds. These issues make us human, and if you are trying to filter by this, you'll end up with maskers as colleagues.
[dead]
I always wanted to tell the story of my weirdest interview. It's bad in a different way from OP's. This was for a "Machine Learning Engineer" contractor position.
- Hi, I'm gobdovan. How are you? says I.
The interviewer doesn't bite:
- How many prompting techniques do you know? (ok?..)
After a couple confused seconds, I respond with 2-3 techniques and ask if I should explain them, but the interview engine is already running at full speed:
- What is PEFT? How many PEFT techniques do you know?
I say I know LoRA and start to explain it, but the interview had no patience for answers longer than their acronyms. Before I knew it, I heard frantic clicking.
- He starts sharing his screen while I am still talking about LoRA in the background. Puts up an empty car from Google Images and commands: "Model the relationships between cars and people positioned inside the cars over time."
Uncertain of how to satisfy the inquiry, I start foolishly questioning what the task is supposed to be: vision? simulation? dataset labeling? self-driving cars?
But the interviewer doesn't budge. Doesn't give a specific task or context. Simply ignores the questions and stoically refuses to elaborate. The stars speak to me, and I guess he wants a relational mapping of some kind. Turns out I am right. This was supposed to test basic SQL table modeling.
At this point, I decide I'd sit through the interview just so I can collect all the questions. I am not disappointed:
- How many agentic frameworks do you know?
- What is the name of OpenAI's embedding model, and how many dimensions does it have?
- Then, the last ordeal lands: interviewer takes out a piece of cardboard that has "context engineering" written on it and asks: "What does this tell you?". His camera is unfocused, I ask if he could read what it says. Instead he repeats: "What does this tell you? What does this tell you? What does this tell you?".
I ask if he is the ML team lead. Turns out this absolute Chad is a mobile dev the client asked to interview candidates for the MLE role.
I've had an interview like this in the past. At the time, I chalked it up to a power trip and the indignant behavior that comes along with it, as it is especially embedded in the culture of the country that I'm based out of.
Having said that, talking to a relative, I found out that this style of "interviewing" is often done when they already have someone for the position, but need to show (for compliance reasons, or otherwise) that they tried finding candidates, and only their preferred one qualified.
I had a really weird power-trip interview once, and it was the CEO who was joined by a contractor who was ostensibly the technical lead for the project. There was nobody in engineering who worked full-time on the job, everybody was contracted. I was also going in as a contractor so I was aware that the interview would be a bit lighter on process as a result.
The questioning very quickly veered away from technical stuff and into stuff like, "where do you stand spiritually?" and other questions probing into whatever bizarre cosmic insights I could pull out of my ass at the time. He was the really intense kind of boss who wants to make sure you know of it with the hard back/shoulder slaps and micromanagement, and I could see his office from the boardroom which basically had an array of monitors all wired up to CCTV so he could watch (and hear) people from the comfort of his desk.
If any of that wasn't a red flag, getting hired literally 5 minutes after leaving the office was probably the biggest. I lasted about 6 months and even trying to leave was an ordeal.
> I lasted about 6 months and even trying to leave was an ordeal.
Like finding your next gig or just not showing up ever again? Because I've worked at a place where someone came in, went to lunch, and they never saw them ever again.
In general as companies decided to treat people like fungible cogs while selling "we're are family" story, it should be expected people will start treating companies like the faceless and soulless entities they really are. When people are laid off and escorted out not even allowed to say goodbye to their coworkers, employees should be just be walking out and doing exactly the same thing to those companies.
In this particular company it was moreso the programming environment for a single product was nightmarish.
I've heard stories like this and always wonder, at what point do you file a missing person's report?
I do wonder that as well, thing is this was a place where people often rage quit or were fired for ridiculous things.
Waiting for the next gig. This was before I learned that sometimes it's better to take the hit and walk away.
My buddy did that.
I got a gig as a contractor for a well known company. They were hiring and he told his recruiter to get him in. After several conversations trying to tell him not to come in and telling him what a clown show it was, he still managed to get hired.
Same thing. Came in, continually had to ask me how to do stuff, and I kept telling him, "See man, I told you this place is a clown show!". He did the same thing. Left his laptop, "Going to lunch, be back in an hour."
Never came back.
Yeah I cant blame someone for knowing their limits. In this case none of the people who worked with the person ever knew why they never came back.
The most shocking part of this story is the part where you took the job. Not trying to throw shade, just the truth! What on earth was going on that made this your best option?
Needed to pay my bills. It tided me over for a short while.
Understandable. I've been there. Something something "cash rules everything around me"
> Having said that, talking to a relative, I found out that this style of "interviewing" is often done when they already have someone for the position, but need to show (for compliance reasons, or otherwise) that they tried finding candidates, and only their preferred one qualified.
Or they only want candidates from a specific country to apply which is seemingly the case. I've heard from very talented and capable developers that they're getting auto-rejected once the interview reaches someone from a very specific country, no matter how good they did prior. I've also been personally told by people I know wouldn't BS me, that had my name sounded like I was from a particular country HR would have contacted me for an interview, but because I'm none of the countries some companies seem to only hire from, I get ignored. There's a problem with tech hiring and nobody wants to talk about it because most people are unaware.
>There's a problem with tech hiring and nobody wants to talk about it because most people are unaware.
And those who are aware and bring it up often get accused of racism when they do, making it difficult to spread awareness of this awful practice.
The funny thing is I am considered a minority, but apparently not the “right kind” of minority. I think outside of being accused of racism I suspect some people anticipate HR level retaliation as well.
Which countries are you all talking about?
Probably India. I'm from Europe but have read in the past about this on Reddit / HN.
More info: https://qz.com/india/889524/the-us-says-oracle-is-encouragin...
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/09/h-1b-san-jose-tech-fi...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41785265
> I chalked it up to a power trip and the indignant behavior that comes along with it, as it is especially embedded in the culture of the country that I'm based out of.
That's a very globally-conscious way to refer to the USA!
My mind raced to the letter I instead
Immediate parent is correct.
The Isle of Man’s toxic culture of dominance shines through again...
Is it Iceland? Ivory Coast? Ireland? Indonesia?
You're guesses are getting somewhat closer each time, almost there.
[flagged]
98,108 results on "India"
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
174,402 results on "Israel"
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I don't know how to tell they're "penalized" though.
It's completely false.
Pretty obviously the latter.
[flagged]
What's hilarious is that I'm pretty sure you got his country wrong too.
> I ask if he is the ML team lead. Turns out this absolute Chad is a mobile dev the client asked to interview candidates for the MLE role.
Some times I run into companies like this: The people you talk to are so visibly inexperienced that you can't comprehend how the company functions, let alone makes money.
Some times it's a zombie company. They received funding or got a windfall from some early business moves, hired a ton of people, and now they're floating through the industry transferring money from customers to salaries as long as they can while their customers slowly leave for better options.
Some times it's a company with horrible management skills. They promote people who play the game instead of doing the work. The person in charge of the ML initiative only wanted to say that they hired MLE people for a new ML initiative for their resume. They grabbed someone who wouldn't complain or talk back and gave them the job of interviewing MLE engineers. That person ChatGPT-ed some questions and ran through a list in each interview, knowing their job was to go through the motions. The interview filters out everyone who would hate that environment, selecting for more people who know that the name of the game is going through the motions and pretending to do work while avoiding getting fired.
I've had very few bad interviews, I've had very few interviews that didn't lead to offers, but I've declined a few. One was semi-recent and it was in in-person in-office interview but the CEO joined remotely. We chatted for a few minutes, then the COO came into the room and we began the interview. The CEO asked one question in the beginning, then the COO asked all the questions. The CEO sat on the screen like a lump. I felt weird, and asked him directly a few times if he had questions, he'd shake his head and gesture to the COO.
Later I got a call from the recruited saying the CEO was unhappy, that he felt "he couldn't get a word in edgewise" but he was willing to "give the interview another chance." I said I was sorry to hear that, and that if the CEO didn't feel he could speak up freely in a 3 person meeting then I wasn't the right fit for that environment.
The COO called me later, the truth was that everything I had said about future planning aligned with their previous CIO who had left after long disagreements with the CEO but that the board liked the plans and my resume. I said no thanks, that the CEO isn't someone I want to work with. If everyone has to constantly cater to the CEO and make sure he feels included, that's not a workplace, that's a kindergarten.
Yep. Anyone can call themselves a CEO. You want proper managers. Check General Hammond from Stargate for a shining example haha
This feels similar to a recent interview experience I had in NYC.
> "What does this tell you?"
Why didn't you answer, that it tells you that his camera is unfocused?
I don't understand how people tolerate this for so long, I'd start trolling the guy after his third question. If he wants to be rude, then I'd retaliate and make sure I have a laugh while he is wasting his time.
Hard to claim the moral high ground if you do eye for an eye. Always be nicer than the other side.
Even for practical reasons. If they think you are a prick, the blast radius can be substantially wider than this specific interview. And for what? The lulz?
I'm not saying to accept rude behavior, but one can leave such situations without being rude back or making a scene.
> Hard to claim the moral high ground if you do eye for an eye.
I do not claim the moral high ground. My moral is more flexible, than just "an eye for an eye" or "be nicer than the other side". I can do any of that depending on a situation. I'm starting any communication with the latter, it is a consequence of my upbringing, but if it doesn't work I may do anything. I want to note, I know that "be nicer than the other side" works oftentimes, people are entering into a communication in some emotional state and with some expectations, and these things can change during the communication. So I let my upbringing to try it first not just because of upbringing, but because I know the value of it.
> one can leave such situations without being rude back or making a scene.
One can. And I can. However there are situations when I just don't want to. A series of interviews that took my time just to end with the rudeness, so I just wasted my time is one of these situations. If they wanted to hire pushovers they could write it upfront in the requirements for applicants, I wouldn't bother them.
Agreed. Wasting applicants time should have consequences. I can play along for a little bit to appease people who are intentionally testing how I handle a difficult situation but I am not going to allow an extended waste of time to occur and that's something I want to communicate to potential employers as well
> Wasting applicants time should have consequences.
The consequence is that they don't get to enjoy your competence as an employee nor that of others who don't feel treated well, with implications for their future strength in the market. That's a much stronger consequence that being rude for a moment to somebody who doesn't care anyway.
> Agreed. Wasting applicants time should have consequences.
This is so funny. "I'll show them by being slightly obnoxious for ten minutes! Then they'll know not to mess with me!"
I'm sure they'll really feel those consequences.
the consequences are that they dont get to be in charge of the time anymore and i stop entertaining the interview game. its not about "showing them" or giving them some sort of punishment, it would be about me relaxing into behavior I want do regardless of them. Which for me would likely be a brief statement that they are losing me as a general professional courtesy and then hanging up on them because I almost certainly have better things to be doing with my time
but having already blocked the time off it's also completely reasonable to take 5 or 10 minutes to farm them for some content for my personal life like the other commentator stated, more or less.
it's not a calculated maneuver centered around them. The purpose of stating that consequences exist is because there are people out there who genuinely believe you have to be a monkey and jump through all the hoops of whatever any employer asks and would condemn someone for trolling a blatant tie waster for 10 minutes. My intent with this public discourse is to give the trolling a pass, not uplift it as some sort of standard of justice
It's easy to be nice in the beginning or when the other side is nice. Point is to be nice even if the other side is rude or wants conflict. In a sense you are giving in to their game if you are rude back. What really hits them is if their counterpart can't be bothered to be rude back.
I just start blessing hearts.
Beautifully spoken, you take the words out of my mouth.
[dead]
I had an experience like this. I showed up and was handed a 50 question pen-and-paper exam on C# trivia, like the result of cursed operator precedence chains. I am not a C# programmer.
No small talk, no discussion of the role, no discussion of my experience or interest in the position. I kept trying to decline and open up a more conceptual conversation on relative importance of things in software, but they really cared about grading my work.
Easily 2 out of 5 interviews I've taken expose spectacular miscommunications between HR / management and future coworkers.
" but the interview engine is already running at full speed:"
I dont know if this is a recent thing, but I had a similar thing where an interviewer was racing forward, and would only accept the answers he had in mind.
In Python, he asked me how to search for substring. I was thinking but he started hurrying me. So I said regex and started writing a regex.
"No, there is an inbuilt method"
I couldnt remember the method. He asked me to google it, but there are dozens of string methods.
"I could use a regex?" I said and tried to show him how.
He ended the call, and 5 min later the agent called me to say my Python was sun-standard so they wouldnt be going forward.
This guy was a permanent employee and supposedly an expert
Commenting just to go against the other two answers. I think it's fine to not remember things, no matter the apparent simplicity.
Quite surprised by others finding this as a... Surprise? I get there is people who never experience this, but they also not know anyone personally to whom this would happen?
I think we're either reading very different comments or having very different understanding of what google search does :)
I’d call this an understandable mistake on the part of the interviewer. “in” is a pretty commonly used operator. But it is also a bit unusual/trivial, in the sense that most languages would have a method or a function instead.
It’s the sort of thing where if you’ve written, like, any Python at all, it’ll be somewhere in the back of your head. It’d surface immediately on the job. But if you’d been using any other language earlier that day, it might not pop up reflexively, or in interview-stress mode.
It’s essentially trivia, and over-indexing on trivia is a mistake. But if they were a Python writer every day, I could see why they’d incorrectly expect everybody to have “in” in their l1 cache.
I don't understand how you jumped to the membership test instead of literally the .find() method on a string?
The interviewer is not asking to solve a problem here, they're asking for a simple ability to follow instructions, hence the offer to use Google to find the correct answer.
You could make a very solid case for using "in" (it is 2-4x faster), but only after you've solved the task at hand, this is what is expected in interviews. Not knowing the interview meta makes an average Joe basically unhireable in this market.
The unfortunate answer is just that I didn’t think of .find before thinking of “in,” haha. Nothing too clever going on in my head.
The existence of a more conventional .find method does some damage to my original point. Oops.
No worries. My point is, if you get asked questions that seem simple to the point where you feel they're asking if "water is wet", then you need to keep your own thinking process extremely simple in response.
The reason is the intent behind their question, which they don't vocalize.
This question means we are dealing with an extremely broad hiring funnel designed to fail people who can't FizzBuzz and need to keep answers at MVP level.
In other words, if you are asked to put out a fire use a bucket of sand, not a state-of-the-art fire extinguisher.
The "in" operator is not unusual or trivia, it's something people who code in python use all the time! Python does have a function (or more accurately a method), it's called __contains__ and it's invoked by "in". I would expect a python developer to be able to comment on whether python uses a fastsearch algorithm or not, they should be able to comment on BM and H algorithms.
Maybe this was a very junior position, but I'm with the interviewer here. Using regex would be very questionable - and a solid case of 1171.
I probably would've done the same. "I don't remember what the function is called" would've been fine-ish, but reaching for a regex is just insane.
A regexp basically comes with a compiler. Who knows what sort of optimisations they've built in under the hood. It wouldn't be surprising if there was a special fast-path for efficiently searching for a substring; that'd be effective in practice.
But more importantly it is hugely context sensitive on how often the function is going to be called and what IO needs to happen around it to decide if speed matters at all.
Using a regex as a first attempt is entirely reasonable. Especially in an interview about Python. If we care about efficiently doing substring matching Python isn't the language of choice. If a programmer just wants to remember how regex work and get on with their day they'll do fine at handling string problems.
Questions like "how would you search for a substring?" are so incredibly dependent on what you're doing on a day-to-day basis, and what you're doing with the data once you've split it. Just because .split(...) is in all the tutorials doesn't mean the codebase you've worked on for the last 5 years actually uses that specific call with any regularity, and it may well be the case that your codebase does use regexs more often (maybe for query-portability purposes).
I write bare metal firmware, primarily in C, and I've had to make it a point to explain, in most every interview I do, that I've only ever used malloc(...) in tutorials. "In my world, malloc is a 4-letter word". So while I know what it does, and how it works, I actually have to google its usage, and I'm not as keyed into its pitfalls, because every system I've ever worked on could not afford the risks associated with dynamic memory allocation.
All of this to say, bad interviewers go looking for a specific answer, good interviewers go looking for good process. All of the jobs I've held are ones that accepted that I was rusty on this or that specific call, but could think about the system holistically.
Why? Unless it's an extraordinarily hot code path, it doesn't matter. A regex once compiled will be quite efficient.
It's simple, unless you're given a specific broader context (like we have an enterprise customer data pruning system that needs to handle a broad range of corner cases) then you must not resort to overengineering this early in an interview.
This is a good example of being bad at writing code.
You have a problem, so you try to solve it with a regex. You now have two problems.
And an extra import. also, it sounds like they where looking specifically for knowledge of built-in operators.
It kind of depends on the substring and problem context.
Arbitrary substring in arbitrary text vs extracting embedded plant code from product serial numbers.
As long as you've got a good explanation for what you chose and why you chose it and the pro/con it's probably fine.
Sarcastic or for real? Because I find that an obvious choice, a little depending on context though.
So obvious that -to be fair- I blanked for a moment too. But 'in' is an operator, not a method (even though it calls __contains__ under the hood) . The question might have been slightly malformed?
No, there's literally a "find" str method.
str.find(sub[, start[, end]])
"Return the lowest index in the string where substring sub is found within the slice s[start:end]. Optional arguments start and end are interpreted as in slice notation. Return -1 if sub is not found."
Your instinct to resort to "in" is correc,t as it's generally slower than the "in" membership test, but the interviewer has even allowed the use of Google. Blanking out after that is really bad.
Step 1: https://www.google.com/search?q=list+python+string+methods
Step 2: Parse the output with your eyes. The method is literally called "find".
This one-trick pony failure mode could perhaps have been fine for a guy who did Java and nothing but Java for 10 years, but you are supposedly the person who runs "pythonforengineers" website...
100% correct call by the interviewer.
So I don't code python. Is it find() or index() or is being terse and rude not really going to add inches to your dick?
You're thinking of a perfect world. We're not in it.
In this one there are often thousands of applicants for a position, most of which can't pass FizzBuzz.
Why would they (or anyone for that matter) choose a candidate who can't figure out how to find info about a trivial method?
Why would you be interviewing for a Python developer position if you don't know Python?
What about 'in'? index()? There are at least 3 canonical methods for basic string searches, and 8 if your include the more specialized forms (all of which are considered solutions).
Please refrain from personal attacks here. Save that for less reputable forums.
I like such interviews. They tell me it's not a place I want to work at without wasting much time finding out.
He was being rude, but I'm equally baffled by your description. It was very weird that you couldn't figure out which method is to search for substring when you have access to google search.
And it was triply weird that when he already said he wanted the non-regex way and you insisted on that.
I think there's zero excuse to be rude to candidates, and the 101 of interviewing is to make it as comfortable as possible for the candidate and not hurrying them up when they are thinking (which wouldn't rememble real work anyway, those aren't the typical time pressures one usually finds on the job... usually). You want them to succeed and not trip up; if anything because it means no more conducting interviews for you! Also, basic human decency.
That said, really... finding a trivial python function using google search, that is a real life work skill. It's 100% real and not made up for interviews. I guess these days one would ask the LLM, too. The only artificial thing was the time pressure which, granted, complicates things needlessly, but other than that, the fact the candidate didn't come up with an answer is still a red flag. (I wouldn't disqualify them just for this, but maybe there were other red flags already?).
Personally, I think the fact even after being asked to google another solution they still insist on the first solution came to their mind is the second biggest red flag.
(The biggest one is that they still think there is nothing wrong about this and decide to victimize themselves on HN.)
I've never understood this extremely common complaint. First of all if one can't remember the substring method in the language they are interviewing for, that's a red flag; extremely common standard lib functions should not be a subject for googling. But let's account for nervousness, okay. If that same candidate can't find the method by googling, it's a no-hire from me, easily.
"python find substring" gives you a valid answer on every single result. This story, and most like it, is incompetence in the python language, in googling, or both.
The interviewer was right. If you don't know "if substring in string" by memory, your python programming is substandard. This should be automatic for anyone who works with python as a primary language. But if you can't even Google to find "if substring in string", why would anyone pay you even minimum wage to be a programmer?
I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but this is a ridiculous thing either wya.
I've used Python as my main language for ~10 years in various professional roles (DS, DE, SWE) and I so rarely need the exact construction `substring in string` that I probably would have blanked on it too in an interview. 99% of my string processing is .startswith/.endswith and re.search, that's just the way it goes. Hell, I know the difference between re.search and re.match by heart (do you? no? you're substandard!) but I genuinely forgot that `in` works on strings.
It's also pretty sad that now "ML engineer" means prompting...
On the one hand I understand this fairly deeply.
I started doing "ML" ~ 20 years ago building classifiers people would laugh at today and even at the time barely impressed people when they were 95% correct.
I moved into NLP and built NERs that missed 2-10% of named entities per document routinely. Best of breed approaches and models rarely fared better.
Learned the cornerstones in school for ML; linear regression, ANNs, traditional RL, image classifiers, A* bots, etc, most of which got baked into transformers later on.
Then the transformers went from interesting novelty to useful. I couldn't build a useful one locally, but the toys versions were still fun to play with.
Then the novelty LLM went from useful to generally applicable. Then they became a silver bullet.
I still can't build one locally. I can distill or build or fine tune if you give me some rented GPUs. But to call this ML is very much a stretch.
I still use the traditional ML a lot, but mostly for evals and analysis.
I get being naturally bummed by this but I can't justify feeling anything but vaguely nostalgic about it. Someone with a $20 subscription can mog anything I can build with the skills I picked up.
If someone hands you a silver bullet you'd be a fool to decline it and spend your time hand casting a crude piece of brass. If the difference between 95% and 99% means you know how to aim or oil the gun, that's the world we live in.
Building a good RAG pipeline or prompt optimization or LLM consensus is dumb stuff that produces a better result than anything I could do from my 2010 ML/AI textbooks. I don't lack the knowledge or capacity to compete, I lack the compute.
That's the job now for 99% of companies.
An acquaintance who works at FAANG says he still builds non-LLM ML systems because of the cost of running LLMs at that scale
Exactly. Besides cost, domain-specific models (which can still be very large) encode our biases (i.e., our knowledge about the domain) in their architecture. Because of that, we have ways to calibrate their accuracy trade-offs over an in-domain sample.
For LLMs, there is a disconnect between the perceived domain (anything a human can think and verbalize) and actual domain (word sequence prediction). We only know how to sample from the latter, not the former.
This "silver bullet" idea sounds a lot like "free lunch". There has been a lowering of the bar for ML practices to make way for this onslaught of prototype-level productivity. Teams that used to do their best to run uncorrelated evals are now having the prompt engineers manually inspect ~100 model outputs before launch.
People were shocked by the accuracy of n-gram models and user interaction data to "read their mind" and complete their searches. Now we're obviously all impressed by the emerging abilities of LLMs (integrated with lots of business logic by the LLM providers). Hopefully in time we'll get desensitized a bit and have the right mental model when using these tools.
P.S. I love your username :)
> I get being naturally bummed by this but I can't justify feeling anything but vaguely nostalgic about it. Someone with a $20 subscription can mog anything I can build with the skills I picked up.
Welcome to the data science job market of the 2015-2023 where everybody with a $20 online course could become a proficient data scientist in only 4 weeks!
Exactly. Not 4 years ago I was rejected from a job for not having enough NLP experience. Can you imagine that today? Someone being hired to do NLP in the market of LLMs?
I had such an interview once. The recruiting agent explained to me beforehand that this is kind of a "stress-technical" interview, supposed to test my real knowledge as I would have to answer the questions without thinking, almost instinctively.
My interview happened on the phone while I was commuting on a crowded train, and was extremely successful - at the end, we both agreed that we were not looking for each other :)
This was back when leetcode was just coming in full swing (early 2010s), which since then replaced it completely. I think the (startup - coincidence?) company that was trying to hire simply didn't have the money to pay for a leetcode hosting service, a phone call costs nothing after all, only time...
That is quite funny, I would have certainly left.
> Turns out this absolute Chad is a mobile dev the client asked to interview candidates for the MLE role
Those elite frontier mobile devs and their overwhelming power!
TBF, your current title/project isn't the same thing as what you're capable of... I have a lot of experience with both front end and backend systems.
I was brought into a new job as a UI expert, but still had some opinions on the backend approach... I overheard a conversation that included, "what does he care about the backend, he's just a UI guy." I don't think I've been quite that pissed off any other time in well over a decade at a workplace.
Holding up a cardboard board in a video interview? This is so deranged.
I wonder if the letters were hand-written or cut and pasted from several magazines.
I bet if they'd been cut out they'd be easier to read.
This is the best thing I've read all day thank you. I laughed so hard!
Oh man imagine if they asked the janitor to interview you and he just goes at it like it's the defining moment of his entire career.
Why doesn't stuff like this happen to me, i'd have so much fun with a guy like this >:)
I had an interview like this, I got annoyed and just responded with "I don't know" to all of his questions. Then the CEO of the company offered me a position, politely declined ofc
> Turns out this absolute Chad is a mobile dev the client asked to interview candidates for the MLE role.
Until this line I assumed this was a screening by HR.
This was a fun story. I appreciate your patience, I would have said thanks and left after the cardboard box show
It's a good job I wasn't being interviewed for this job, as I have not one iota of a smidge of a clue what PEFT and LORA are. And I have no idea what varieties of prompting technique there are.
PEFT is more niche as it's a specific library (https://github.com/huggingface/peft) that creates LoRAs, but for a machine learning engineer working with LLM models outside of just prompting an API, it's within scope to know why/how a LoRA should be used.
Fair enough.
Whenever I'm in an interview (almost) like this, I happily remind myself that interviews work in two directions: they are also for me to evaluate my possible employer.
I don't know what I would do, I've never had to hang up on an interview, but I just might have especially after how it ended.
I wonder if such companies realize (or care) how much good talent they're losing by keeping bad talent.
Hard for some to know when they have the ear of higher ups.
I had one a bit like this, the interviewer was a nontechnical guy who just had a list of questions.
"The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping."
Dude, we got this gig from the app Turtle Flipper.
It‘s a quote from Blade runner, testing subjects to see if they‘re androids.
Did you get the job?
No, but I gained something just as valuable.
After the interview, the recruiter who introduced me to this job said they had another role for me. But first, he wanted links to the other positions I'd applied to, what those positions were paying, and how far along I was with each one.
I told him I wouldn't do that and he said that it was ok. Haven't heard from them in a year or so, but I'm sure that other interview is in the bag.
Hahah excellent. I love that the terrible job interview came through a terrible recruiter, it just fits perfectly.
Why would a recruiter expect you to give that?
I expect some people are so desperate to please that they will hand over any information.
For those that don't understand why an external recruiter is asking for that detail they are trying to find new clients to sell their services to.
They'll frame it as not wanting to waste anybody's time by submitting you as a candidate if you're already mid-flight on other positions, but they can still figure that out without having specifics on the actual company, role, salary, etc.
They're banking on you offering it because saying no would rule out any mysterious prospects they have to offer, but really they're looking for new leads and if it comes from a candidate then it's warmer. Just have to be polite when you give them vague info and say you're not able to share more than that.
Also, other positions they now know are open and can see if they can recruit for.
Laugh and say "Nice try. I won't hold it against you, but...seriously? Do you actually expect people to tell you that?"
Sounds like a shameless attempt at market research.
I hope for his mental sanity that he didn't
You have to respect this guy's patience tho
I kinda wish that the industry norms changed such that it wasn't so taboo to just name and shame these companies.
I do think sometimes the interview process can be weird as hell, but if one is to name and shame it doesn't help really, they could change their processes and even take feedback but if there's a constant record of the oddities it can turn off potential perfect fits. I've been shocked how many people will base their approach off of Glassdoor reviews from 5 years ago for example. I think it's fair for a company to improve, plus it makes for funny posts like this!
Also I'm not sure it's such a tabboo as it is a stigma on the applicant!
I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like an absolute Chad. That, sir, is a Giga Senior Alpha Chadus Maximus.
LOL! My knee jerk reaction was going to be "dude, it's sarcasm". But you are way ahead of me :)
HAHA....giga Chad to giga Chad, no worries ;) LOL
What the actual F lol
I was excited, it was a game company, and I'd wanted to get back into games - or more specifically, game engines - for a few years. The tech of this particular company was interesting, an in-house engine developed by wunderkind, of course, and they'd invited me for an interview because I had done a fair bit of low-level work, which would be handy for their rough edges. Apparently.
Half way through the interview, I had an epiphany. I really didn't want to work there. It was cultural, it just wasn't going to fit.
I didn't waste any more time. Half-way through a white-board challenge, I put down the marker and said, plainly, "okay, I've seen enough, I don't want to work here - thanks and let me not waste any more of your time", picked up my coat and left.
It wasn't a bad interview. It wasn't a terrible one. Nor was it because of the whiteboard question, or anything like that.
I just didn't like the guys. That's all it was. And I couldn't stand the idea of working for them - just the way the interview proceeded. I don't need to give details.
It was really the only time I ever got up mid-interview and left.
I had a similar thing where they were going through my code from a takehome.
It was with an architect and a lead developer and the architect was really rubbing me up the wrong way. Stupid nitpicks that were all style preferences. Not at all talking about the actual code. I start pushing back and he starts getting a bit combative, which sets me off a bit too as these were the days jobs were plentiful.
At some point he offhandedly mentioned I didn't need a particular line of code in the startup config. So I say, "Yes, that's required, it initializes the routing". He quips back, "No, that line's not necessary at all, you don't need it". The lead dev is looking completely exasperated at the architect at this point.
I paused, started a screen share. Went to the line. Commented it out. Ran the program and it fell over.
I then said, "I'm not interested in working with you, thanks for your time, bye"
Always trust your gut. Especially when it comes to people. Don't overthink, never rationalize it. Accept your feeling, it's valid.
If I learned anything from all my past mistakes in life, it's this.
Same.
I left a really good job for a year, to go work for a company CEO'd by a buddy of mine. I had a bad, sinking feeling in my gut from the very beginning when In interviewed with my new boss (not my buddy). Sure enough, I fucking hated working for him, and quit after a year.
When I was leaving my old job, I remember rationalizing it to myself that I would regret not doing it if I didn't try. I have mixed feelings about that job -- not necessarily regret for taking it, but definitely some regrets for how things went down at the end.
With that being said, if I had turned down that job, I don't know if I would regret it now or not. Who's to say?
Anyway, I got my old job back, and lasted there for several more years. It's still the best place I ever worked.
I had to check your profile after reading that first line.
Fortunately 2016 join date, "No AI used in my comments".
But holy cow that was uncanny after months of Claude
Maybe this is the guy they trained the LLMs on?
Nothing will take years off your life better than working for people you don't like in a company you don't want to work at.
I guess that is the problem with the current state of the world. Employers hold most of the cards and people are desperate to find and retain employment. As someone who has coupled themselves to the wrong trains more than I'd like to admit, I'd encourage all young engineers to ask themselves, "Is work more important than your mental and physical health?" Don't underestimate the affect of toxic people, management and companies on your brain and body. Over time you may pay the ultimate price; an early death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony should be n our vocabulary.
I remember interviewing once and they told me what they were working on.
I was actually familiar with the product, but it had some glaring shortcomings, and I kind of groaned a little inside.
And I told them that I liked some things about the product, but then I unfiltered sort of pointed out what was wrong. I really wasn't interested in working on it (though I didn't say that outright)
And then they decided they loved and needed me. (and I didn't go there)
Sort of like dating I think. Show a little skepticism and you might unintentionally get more interest than if you were open and sincere.
It's basically the confidence and being blunt.
Pretty much like that Office Space scene when main character meets the Bobs.
I think the skepticism was the sincerity they were looking for.
I had a similar experience with another company. At one point during the interview, the HR department asked me to do a really stupid exercise, despite the fact that I am an engineer with over 20 years of experience.
I wrote an email saying I would not pursue the position, and they wrote back asking me to have another interview with them. I politely declined.
They probably understood that their method was not good.
I have never done what you did, but I am going to take note of the fact that it is something one can do. Because I've certainly had the same moment of realization a few times, and I went through the motions anyway.
I've been on the other side where I decided I didn't want to hire the candidate. I'd ask them some leading questions so they could get out early if they wanted.
Good. and you saved time by doing this. It feels more the right thing.
I left mid interview for a game company too. It was likely due to bad interview skills on behalf of the interviewer.
If it was Blizzard, I can completely understand you.
[dead]
I had something similar years ago. I applied for a job at a company, size around 150 people. Did two rounds of interviews which were great. They wanted me to offer the role. However, as a third round, I was going to do a meet and greet with the CEO and he was going to yay or nay me. At point I dropped out. If a CEO can't trust his delegate managers to hire the people they see fit for a role, then thanks but no thanks. That's not a company culture I want to spend most of my waking hours in.
I don't know your particular situation, so it might be totally different, but I think this is commonly just a formality and a friendly chat.
It's a chance for you to meet the actual CEO (or VP or whatever in a larger company), and also for them to get to meet you in advance, instead of effectively getting "blindsided" by a new person (to exaggerate a bit).
Usually, by the time you've gotten to that point, the decision to hire you has well and truly been made. I don't know what then would need to happen for the actually rather secondary function of giving the CEO the opportunity to veto to become relevant. I'd be curious hearing about anyone who's ever experienced it (on whatever side). I guess it can be a safeguard against vastly unaligned values, but I suspect it's very rare.
But primarily, and effectively, it's usually just a meet-and-greet. And it's hard for me to blame a CEO (or VP etc.) for at least getting to anyone who's going to enter a mutual contract to effectively become part of their company.
> just a formality and a friendly chat
That was not the case in this scenario. I was told I would be offered the role if I came out favorable with the CEO (did he like me or not? did I jump when the said "jump"?). To me this meant that the CEO doesn't trust the people he hires. He clearly didn't trust the hiring manager's jugement and/or respected their position. The CEO delegated a task and responsibility but then felt to have to authority to override that, which maybe he does. However, that's not a culture in which I want to operate. If I was wrong, so be it, but I saw a red flag and I made a choice.
You know better, as you have all the information and we merely have a shadow of it, but that in itself still sounds like “standard boilerplate” to me.
I remember from my friends who worked at Google at the time, that everyone’s always been told that “every new hire’s contract lands on Larry Page’s desk, he has to sign off on it”, and you can probably bet your bottom dollar that Larry Page didn’t spend a lot of time on each hiring package, if any.
I'd argue I won't work there. "The buck stops here" is never true when shit hits the fan so it's just kabuki theatre in all other situations just to take credit.
I wouldn't work at Google either.
If you can't trust the people you have hired to hire people then you shouldn't have hired them.
it's usually just a meet-and-greet.
Yes, it usually is. But in this case the problem was that the CEO could unilaterally override the decision made by everyone else, so it wasn't just a meet-and-greet.
Yea, it's not a meet-and-greet, as in there can be no impact to the outcome of the interview. You're definitely still interviewing. But, in every case where I got to the point of "You're going to chat with the [Founder|CEO|BigTech VP]," at that point the job was mine to lose. They're not going to waste a VIP's time if they're not serious about making you an offer. You effectively have the offer. Your job when talking to the VIP person at the end is to "sound like a likable, competent person, who VIP would be cool with saying 'yea I hired this person'." That's pretty much all you need to do.
Generally the chat with the VIP means: "You have the job, but I (VIP) want to just double check that my underling hiring managers are not totally useless."
You effectively have the offer.
No, you don't have the offer at all. If you did, you would already have the offer letter in hand and the meeting with the VIP would just be a casual meet-and-greet. When it is part of the interview process, it is very deliberately because the VIP has veto power, and thus the decision to hire has not been finalized.
Your job when talking to the VIP person at the end is to "sound like a likable, competent person, who VIP would be cool with saying 'yea I hired this person'."
As you point out, the VIP is the one making the hiring decision. Everyone before the VIP was just a filter before the actual decision-maker.
(Outside of tech) the only time it's normal for a VIP to be involved in the interview process is when they're interview for executive or other management level positions, or for a role that would be working directly with management on a regular basis. But tech likes to do things backward, and insist that a VIP wasting their time on a lower-level hire is somehow normal. It's not normal in any other industry.
That is exactly the assumption I was operating under, I even called it a "veto". Does not change anything I wrote.
(And of course the CEO can override any hiring decision anyway. The question is if they will.)
The point of my comment (and yours) was that the hiring decision wasn't actually made, because as you point out (again): the CEO's decision was the only one that mattered.
That's a huge red flag for any workplace. The only time you should ever consider taking a job at a company like that is if you're unemployed and you need the job and have no other prospects.
If you got to that point it's just a formality, and unless you somehow blow it the job is (probably) already yours, if you decide you still want it. You seem to have jumped to unwarranted assumptions about the company culture; quite possibly the CEO does want to make sure the culture is good and remains good. It's not necessarily a binary test of whether the CEO can't trust delegating to their managers; it's also your constructive opportunity to use that conversation to get more insight into where the company, strategy, product/service, customers etc. are going. A good question to ask the CEO is about the broader impact of your role: that should get you some useful insight, also you compare the delta between what the CEO says vs what the senior managers said vs what the recruiter said; they don't need to be identical but they should broadly agree, and it shouldn't reveal any fundamental disagreements or ambiguities (e.g. "your role is incremental support of product X" vs "totally rewrite it in language Y in the next 9 months"). Listening to their response should also give you subtle behavioral cues about who in the company does/doesn't have influence, credibility and where the pain points are: you can't generally get that from the previous interviews, and it can be a faux pas to explicitly ask.
(PS: if you find reasons to suspect the CEO isn't delegating effectively to managers, then ask the CEO an open-ended question "How much do you do yourself vs which tasks do you delegate to your managers?" then listen carefully to their answer. And it's still not necessarily a red flag, it may just be a new or inexperienced CEO, or maybe overcompensating for one or two bad hire experiences at current or previous company. Compare to their answer to "How do you assess new hires within the first 90 days?").
The only (minor) negative I'd take from this is that it still behaves like a small startup scaling quickly, and they haven't yet figured out how to to scale interviewing and hiring for when they get larger... but that's overall a good complaint, it shows they're still growing. It's much better that your signoff interview is with the CXO (or VP) than the Director of HR, or an AI bot. Honestly I'd pay more attention to how many days/weeks/months it takes them to make the hiring decision than how many management layers were involved; that's a bigger tell of organizational dysfunction.
Don't overthink.
My friend has been contracting at $STARTUP for a couple of years now with a revolving 2 month contract. His managers have not attempted to hide the fact they would likely end his contract once they've managed to hire a full timer into the team.
Sadly, their CEO has veto-ed every single full time hire they've tried to bring on for past 2 years now.
I never understand this dynamic, why not hire the friend after like 6 months of contract or whatever?
The product is old school PHP. They want to convert it to Go but none of the young engineers are interested in touching the codebase. My friend is the reverse instead, uninterested in learning new languages/technologies.
So neither of them want to hire each other.
Because that would be a big pay cut for the friend. Contract day rates are higher than FTE day rates.
You made the right choice.
The only time a CEO should be meeting a hire is if the company is a tiny startup, or the role will be working regularly and directly with the CEO.
Otherwise, it's the worse kind of micromanagement. If the CEO wants to meet the new face they do so after the person starts, and this is the norm outside of tech.
I don't agree, but I think your perspective is valid so I upvoted you.
I've worked for companies that did this, in fact I'd say this is commonplace at startups and small companies, at least till around 500 employees or so. If I ever start another company, I'd operate the same way as a founder/ceo. While Dunbar's Number probably puts an upper limit on the number of people I can truly know in my organization, I think it's incredibly important as a leader to have the possibility of putting a face to a name inside the one endeavor (company) you are wholly responsible for. That doesn't say anything about my trust or lack there-of in the people below me on the org chart.
I almost feel the opposite. I've turned down jobs because I want to understand the strategic direction and the folks I was interviewing with couldn't adequately explain it and they were unwilling to let me meet the folks high enough up the chain that they could as part of my interview process. If I can't get the time of day out of the founder during one of the most important decisions (hiring) that their company makes, they're certainly not going to give me the time of day once I'm in the door and that means I have effectively no feedback mechanism. Why would I want to work there?
I don't get why people downvote this.
I fail to recall the exact wording of the discussion topics, but they were, in fact, non-technical — covering such lovely topics as the hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
Ha, I don't think anyone who asks these questions expects that you'll respond in a fully unfiltered way... These kinds of questions are part and parcel of non-tech interview processes.
You can redirect with some subtlety "Well, my hardest ever day at work was..." to avoid talking about dead babies or whatever. Your interviewer doesn't get to look over your whole life history and determine whether your /truthfully/ chose the actual hardest ever day. So really it's a chance for you to say "Here's a [big] challenge I once faced, and here's how I survived/overcame it."
Yeah, OP just unwinded himself, no filter. You can be truthful and open with friends and family, close people to you. You absolutely shouldn't when talking with strangers.
Then strangers shouldn't fucking ask questions that could have answers that make them uncomfortable. Just a thought.
We weren't there, and the article is light on details, so we can only speculate. I see two options here:
a) The potential employer vastly overstepped commonly accepted boundaries.
b) It was totally implied that the questions were to be answered in the context of work. "What was the hardest challenge you had to overcome?" in that context relates to e.g. debugging a hard concurrency problem, not your divorce.
What stood out to me is that whatever interpretation is the correct one, the candidate was willing to give (apparently) deeply personal answers. That's just something to adjust for in upcoming interviews, we live and learn.
At any point the interviewer could have clarified if they meant "at work" when they received an inappropriate answer. The fact they did not do this means they did not mean "at work," which makes sense because the questions they ask neither specify that nor are worded to make one believe they are work-related.
What would be the point of conducting an entire hour+ long interview where the candidate is only giving you irrelevant answers and you make no attempt to get them on track?
It's wild to see so many advocates of "the inexperienced should have experience already". You're put in an awful situation but it's your own fault because you went through it, you should have known better than to take questions at face value as presented.
Uhhhhh these questions are experience filters, that's why it's better to have experience when you answer them.
Don't you think an interview is a collaborative effort? What signal is the interviewer getting from a candidate if they're asking about work experiences and the candidate is answering with personal non-professional anecdotes?
Assuming that the candidate was in the wrong here, and the interviewer wanted work anecdotes, why didn't the interviewer guide them to the right topics? If they didn't guide them to the right topic, your assumption that they wanted work examples may be flawed.
This is what makes this a potentially (mostly) great interview. If the candidate can’t/doesn’t understand the dynamic of the interview and hates it, they opt out of the process.
Probably only thing I would’ve done differently would have been to limit first call to 30 minutes to save me time when someone is obviously a bad fit.
They shouldn't ask such questions, but people also need to learn to push back against unreasonable behaviour too.
"How are you?" "How was your weekend?"
It is common for people to ask a personal sounding question but expecting an impersonal answer.
And they should stop doing that. Who benefits?
The people asking when they figure out whether you can follow simple conventions or not.
I think this is the case of "hey how it's going." In most cases what is actually being demanded of you is a bullshit answer.
OP took it at face value. I can relate.
Alternatively, the interviewer was a psychopath. (I can also relate!)
[dead]
But why ask about "the hardest day in your life" instead eg "the hardest day at work"?
Personally asking this kind of personal questions sounds very weird. You can evaluate soft skills and culture fit by asking more relevant, professional questions. Except if the reason to ask this kind of more personal questions was sth else.
Notice that the blog post author did not provide exact quotes. In fact, they explicitly state they do not remember the wording. It's very likely that they did, in fact, ask about biggest challenges, and the author misunderstood.
The cynic in me says because they want to select candidates whose work IS their life.
If they ask questions but expect fake, censored or cherry-picked answers, it says a lot about their culture.
Pro tip (for life, not only interviewing): never ask a question you don’t want to hear answer to.
I've done a couple bay area startup interviews where the interviewer specifically asks for 'personally / family' related anecdotes. With the explanation that they view their company as a literal family and want to make sure candidates would fit in. So I'm inclined to believe OP's description and understanding of the question
You are technically correct. But you must admit it sounds pretty bad to say "Yeah, the idea of the behavioral technical interview is the interviewer asks questions that look like they admit honest answers, but you should actually lie to them, and they expect you to lie, and actually it's a charade you play with your interviewer, and if you don't understand this (which is never explained to you) then you will immediately be rejected."
I can definitely understand the perspective of someone who has done few interviews not understanding this and being upset/confused!
I paid for interview coaching at interviewing.io. This is the coaching I got about the behavioral interview:
- "There is no place for honesty in a behavioral interview. No one is going to check your story."
- Tell a story about a time when you got into a dispute, ideally with your boss, over a work-related issue, and you won the dispute.
- If you have no relevant story, I [the coach] will write one for you to memorize.
In fact, being able to "play the game" so to speak is probably part of what the interviewer is looking for.
It is also possible that they were trying to see, if the person had traumas that would interfere with their ability to work with toxic content, do red-teaming / etc tasks.
> Ha, I don't think anyone who asks these questions expects that you'll respond in a fully unfiltered way.
Cut to the interviewer telling his friends about the weirdest interview he ever conducted, with a guy who unloaded all his life issues on him instead of focusing on work. :)
My worst interview was at Uber (their security team).
The screening and technical interviews on site were all fine and dandy. At the end of the onsite interviews I spoke with the director in charge of the team. I asked some general questions like, "What's the team's work-life balance like?"
He chuckled and said something like they work 60+ hour works. I looked at him and said flatly, "Yeah, I'm not doing that."
The HR person called me after the onsites and was completely puzzled. She said she never seen a candidate pass technicals and not get an offer. She suggested sending me to another team (I declined).
> My worst interview was at Uber (their security team).
Worst? It sounds like a great interview where you set a boundary before going into a situation you would not have liked. People forget that part of the interview process is also for the candidate to decide if they want to work for the company.
I feel you. I once had a second-level manager interviewer suggest that I work through the lunch hour while on the job. I terminated that interview process the same day.
So... You've never had a bad interview. Congrats!
Ummmmm
Interviews are a two-way thing. Don't forget that.
Frankly, far from being your worst interview, this was one of your most successful ones.
Would be funny if the interviewer wrote the exact same blog post; "I had the worst candidate interview today, I asked him a simple ice-breaker question before getting into more technical stuff, and he just went off about his family and relationships for an hour; weirdest interview I ever gave."
The description of the interview seems like it was explicitly non-technical, though.
“He kept talking about dead babies, failed relationships and the time he cheated in an exam in grade five. Fifteen minutes in and I wondered not whether I would hire him, but if he would kill me and wear my skin if I didn’t. Or did. Little difference.”
I've had that before. I asked a woman to walk me through her career (I told her I've obviously seen the profile before, but I'd love to hear the elevator pitch directly from her) and she started off by saying,"Well, you need to know that I was raised in a cult."
And, yeah, I feel bad for her. But also: time and place.
I passed on her because she didn't have the technical skills, but that was definitely a case of the setting not being right.
Yep. This is definitely an OP-is-autistic problem, or is perhaps inexperienced. Not an interviewer problem. Keep it professional. If an interviewer asks a personal question then you simply refuse to answer (politely), or steer it back towards a professional context. If they persist then you end the interview.
"definitely an OP-is-autistic problem" is an absurd claim to make about an internet stranger, and violates comment guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Well, as someone with autism myself it's relatively easy to spot others, and given the information provided in the post I'd say chances are high. Not sure what rule you're referring to, it looks fine to me - autism is a super power, not a slur.
I don't agree. While yes, it's definitely possible the interviewee handled it poorly, I have seen enough poorly conducted interviews to say it's just as likely the interviewer was the problem.
My best guess is that as a mental health startup geared toward expanding access to therapy services, they were fishing for candidates who had some kind of experience with the industry, or who could prove their fealty to the mission. For example: "After grieving the loss of my brother, I tried to obtain counseling services. But my private insurance didn't cover that, and when I looked for supplemental insurance, I was stuck in a byzantine maze of options. There was no centralized and easy way to see what might be covered, and for what cost; all of it was hidden behind sales reps you had to contact over the phone. That's when I came to understand the value of the kind of service ACMECORP is looking to introduce into the market."
From the details I read in the post you are almost certainly wrong, not to mention being reallying condescending.
The interviewer has control over the room. They steer the conversation. They could have stopped this at any point. Instead they encouraged OP to go deeper for 90 minutes.
That wasn't OP misunderstanding a question, that was an interviewer enjoying the power trip.
Should OP take their mom next time to shut things down for them? You don't have to do what others ask of you, you know. I stand by my original assumption - they were too inexperienced with the world to know you can tell someone no, or lacked the ability to do so.
It might be cultural as well; I'm Polish and living in UK made me change my habits of answering "How are you?" questions. Same with Dutch from my experience - there are cultures where people say what's on their mind without the "I'm fine, how are you" bullshit.
To be fair though, drama-dumping goes beyond that
How do Poles answer "how are you?" differently to Brits?
Brits will either say "Fine, thanks" or not respond at all. Poles will tell you that yesterday they went to visit their relatives, and now they're tired, or that their cat is sick, or that they having problems with something.
It's a difference between "asking when you don't care about response" vs "asking because you genuinely want to know how the other person is"
In the UK, a perfectly valid answer to "How are you?" is "How are you?"
Yes :D
In Poland you would just say Hej! = I acknowledge you being there but I don't want to chat. But again, back to the point I was trying to make - the intent behind these sort of questions (and answers) can be cultural
you think that's what it was? The people with 100% of the power in this situation did everything 100% correct and you're not victim-blaming at all?
It was a textbook example of the double contingency of communication¹. In communications it doesn't only matter what each side is objectively saying. It matters what the other side expects them to hear. And that goes both ways.
In this case the interviewer asked these questions to get to know the candidate in a professional setting, so they expected a diplomatic or professional answer. The candidate however misjudged the interviewer intention behind the questions, took them literally and answered them truthfully. Neither of these people is technically sporting a wrong position, yet the communication broke down.
That being said, the idea that you can choose not to talk about certain things is pretty basal when it comes to communications. If you have a trauma nobody can force you to talk about it and you should also not talk to everybody and their dog about it (and I know people who constantly do this and have a tendency to regret it afterwards). It costs you nothing to say that you can't think of any specific day, or talk about a day where a old boss at a shitty student job abused you, to frame it in work terms. To talk strategically or diplomatically is a skill that is needed in many positions. And that candidate displayed a total lack of that ability.
That being said I am not particularly fond of that type of question myself. Both as an the person carrying out an interview and the person going to one. I am more interested to see how a person tackles certain situations than to have them tell me stories about it.
¹: see https://www.orientation-philosophy.com/glossary/double-conti...
No. Reread the post. This interview was specifically explained as a non-technical, cultural-fit talk, and the interviewer "gave an impression of this being a safe space". That means they said something specific to hint that this is the case.
Don't blame the poor guy who was subjected to this. You're projecting your understanding of what is normal for the interviewer and assuming that the particular interviewer didn't cross any of the lines you wouldn't. Unless you are the interviewer or know their side of the story, there is literally nothing in the post that would suggest your reading is correct.
A simpler explanation: the interviewer was an amateur psychologist with little experience in either interviewing or therapy. They asked "interesting questions," then were overwhelmed by answers they hadn't expected and couldn't gracefully handle. That's it. Please, unless you know more about that particular instance, don't reflexively blame the candidate for what looks like a series of errors on the interviewer's part.
> In this case the interviewer asked these questions to get to know the candidate in a professional setting, so they expected a diplomatic or professional answer
And there is no bias in this assumption whatsoever?
This interview lasted over an hour. If he was answering wrong they should have said something.
"Victim blaming" because of a bad interview. lolwut
I've been working as a dev for over twenty years now and have had my fair share of interviews. The very worst I ever had was about six months ago.
I'd had a fantastic initial interview, it seemed like a perfect fit and interesting tech. Overlapped a lot with some work I'd been doing recently. They made it sound like my experience was a great match and they were exited for me to move forward. I was the most excited I've ever been after a job interview.
The second interview a couple days later was a one-on-one with the CTO. After about five minutes of pretty friendly get-to-know-you chitchat he asks if I have any questions about the position. I ask about what my day to day would look like and he replies "I don't know, and that's the problem. I don't like to lead people on, I'll be honest I don't see a position for you here."
It was such a sudden slap in the face that my brain just completely shut off. I kind of just stammered out an "Oh... Um... Thank you for your time"
I didn't get to talk about my experience ... at all. Not a single mention of my twenty years of across multiple tech stacks my resume doesn't even begin to scratch. I've never been judged so quickly or so blindly.
Later that day, out of sheer frustration I email him back trying to explain that I'd felt like I didn't get a chance to talk about myself and all the ways I'd felt like I was a great fit based on the previous interview and how my experience applied.
I never heard anything back.
Seems like you dodged a bullet. Hard to hear when you’re looking for a job, but not every job is a good opportunity.
Yeah. It's kinda like when someone gets infatuated with someone but they don't reciprocate. Do you want to be with someone who doesn't like you? Of course not. Find someone else.
He probably perceived you as a competition. If you do not like playing politics that probably was for the better.
Congrats on not working there I guess. Apparently that CTO wasn't worth working with anyways
I have had my fair share of terrible interview as well. The key thing I learnt is that the interview is an opportunity for me to understand the culture of the company and judge my fit there as well. I know that the phrase "dodge a bullet" is used to death in those kind of situation, but if the interviewer is behaving unprofessionally you can safely assume the people in the company will be unprofessional in a lot more other area.
As an instance, I had an interview with a CEO of a consulting firm. He took the interview while on the metro, so half the time on the call I couldn't hear what he said at all. When the call ended, I send a message to the HR person giving quite a critical feedback and stopping any further process with the company. A few months later I talked with one of my friend who worked there for 3 months. The CEO and the legal department overlooked some certain paperworks with regard to employment insurance, and when the taxman came and gave them a heavy fine, they hide the situation from everybody until the situation became unfixable. The company went bankrupt essentially overnight and most of the employees has a 1-year plus insurance gap with no practical way to sue for it back.
Moral of the story: if the interview feels wrong, email them and decline going forward right away. Give yourself the satisfaction of consciously dodging a bullet.
>Moral of the story: if the interview feels wrong, email them and decline going forward right away. Give yourself the satisfaction of consciously dodging a bullet.
I wished I had known this earlier in my life.
I once interviewed at a healthcare startup ran by the brother of someone very closely related to the current occupant of the White House. This was 3 weeks after I graduated college.
I went through the first round, no problem. 2nd round, it was Halloween, and a nurse dressed up as a cow (spotted makeup and all) comes into the room and asks me to role play a situation where I have to deny life-saving insurance claims to a cancer patient who's been given a life threatening diagnosis.
Halfway through the exercise I asked the interviewer - "so, this is an insurance company, and the insured has been paying premiums for a while, probably 10s of thousands of dollars, and they have what is otherwise effectively a terminal diagnosis...and you're asking me to deny this person their only chance at survival?". I was given the response of "that's how insurance works"
Sad.
Indeed. I've had a bunch of jobs, and my experience has been that the job interview sort of reflects the people and structure / organization you'll be working with.
To put it this way: The best places I've worked at also had good interview rounds, while some of my least enjoyable employers had less enjoyable interview rounds. The absolute worst interviews have been at places I didn't get an offer, or I didn't pursue afterwards.
If the person interviewing me is rude, glued to their phone, uninterested, and in general indifferent to what happens - I'm going to assume that's a reflection of how the company culture is. I can also understand that not all people tasked with interviews will bring their A game every time, and that there may be external factors at play - but those places usually show a pattern.
I've yet to interview at a place where the interview was terrible all around, and then find out that the company is gold.
I'd rather work at a company where the interviewer smokes a cigarette in the conference room than one where they give off rigidly hierarchical "nobody has any agency" vibes. Sure we might go bankrupt but I'll have to put up with a whole lot less dumb "we don't pay you to think" bullshit and morale will be way higher the whole way there.
I'd rather neither firm be allowed to exist.
Let me preface this by saying, I know this might be a privileged take. However, I've had some bad interview experiences but one thing I have never had happen and I never will do is cross the "just business"/"personal" line with anyone I may or am working with.
> hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
I would take these types of questions as "from a professional standpoint". If the interviewer corrected and wanted personal answers, the interview would be over.
> ...I never will do is cross the "just business"/"personal" line with anyone I may or am working with.
Just in an interview situation, or you will just never be open to a personal friendship with anyone you ever work with?
> you will just never be open to a personal friendship with anyone you ever work with?
Building relationships with colleagues is possible but I have tried to be careful. I have made some friends over time that were once co-workers. However, they were only able to move to full friend once they moved on to other teams or companies. I don't see someone I work with day-to-day as a personal friend. I compartmentalize them, keep the relationship professional and cordial.
Moving someone to a personal friend has risks, especially if there is a chance you may work for or with them again. Some personal friendships may be able to outlast work drama, but so far I haven't had that happen for me. I've lost a few along the way due to negative conditions at work.
Have you had a personal friend that stayed around after leaving a bad situation at work? Any pointers?
My best friend is someone i worked with, and we hit it off immediately. He also was one of the people who interviewed me before hire, too. I left the company because of medication induced issues with co-workers (long boring story... careful with SSRIs kids!)
and we still ... actually he just called so i gotta cut this short we talk 5 hours a week on the phone plus we run a PBX and chat server and stuff so we're constantly in contact.
Thanks for that sensible answer, had to scroll down quite a while to find you there.
The real problem is that for many people it takes a while to realize you're being abused, in that case it was only a while after.
I highly recommend learning the basics of persuasion and how to manipulate people. It helps identifying the signs early.
Sorry OP you had to go through this - not knowing your circumstances, but golden rule, once the interview starts getting invasive, please cut it short and move on.
Recently I had an interview for a contract position. First off, it was a zoom interview where the interviewer did not have his camera on.
He promptly asks me to share my screen - which I found odd, since I had no content to share with him.
Next - he tells me to go the top right screen of my mac and asks me to disable bluetooth.
I said am not going to do it, since I had my airpods connected and within the next second I also told him am not interested in proceeding with this BS interview.
There are boundaries of human decency, which you should never let anyone cross.
Had something similar happen.
I get on the zoom call. Told it would be a general interview and same thing. No camera, then asked me to show my drivers license and social security card to prove my identification.
I asked why they needed this in the first interview. He stammered back and forth and then reiterated the interview would not go forward until I confirmed my identity by showing my drivers license and SS card.
Yeah, sorry bud, that's not happening and hung up. I kept wondering how many others got taken by this scam.
Big red flag - definitely identity theft there!
As we're all sharing some bizarre experiences we've had, I feel I have to chip in.
I had 2 very weird interviews with the same FAANG company, before actually joining the company in 2021.
Anyway, we're in 2011 and my career in tech has just started. I hear back from a recruiter regarding a role I've applied for, and to be considered for this position it is mandatory to be fluent in French. Which shouldn't be a problem as I happen to be French.
The recruiter tells me that the person that was initially supposed to interview me first (a native French speaker) is currently off sick, and that his manager will be interviewing me instead.
I'm in a room in the lovely old offices of this company, by the Bord Gais theatre for those who live in Dublin. The manager I'm about to spend the next 30 minutes with is American, and majored in French. At least according to the recruiter.
She greets me with a "bon matin !" which doesn't sound right in French, but that I immediately realise is the literal translation of "good morning!". She mumbles a few things which I now can't remember, but something along the lines of "la entretien il est aujourd'hui dans le Facebook, pourquoi ?". I just smile at her while trying to process what she just asked me. But I can't, so I ask her to repeat what she just said. V2 of her question is even worse, and we spend the next 5 to 6 minutes trying to understand each other. Eventually she switches to English and goes on to tell me how she moved to Dublin from the US a couple of years ago.
A few hours later, the recruiter emails me and tells me that unfortunately, being fluent in French is mandatory for this role and that I obviously am not.
Funny thing, I've been in Ireland for 16 years now, and I know a ton of people who also had some very weird interviews with this same company, all roughly between 2010 - 2017: like for instance a hiring manager who had brought her dog to the office (and therefore to the interview room). The dog kept barking / jumping on her, and she very clearly didn't pay any attention to the answers my friend was giving her (he didn't get the role). I could go on with stories like these ones for hours. All at the same FAANG company, all in Dublin, all between 2010 and 2017.
Like I said earlier, when I eventually joined in 2021 the interviewing process felt a lot more professional.
Better than my interview at a Apple, where one of the senior engineers who was supposed to interview me didn't show up - twice in a row.
I'd been recommended for the role by colleagues who'd moved to Apple; I gave them some rather pointed feedback for them to pass on to the hiring manager and moved on.
An interviewer that doesn't show up is really bad. Not matter where you work, you'd probably end up having a chat with HR if you did that twice.
Sorry about that buddy!
Wow, why do you think the communication was so off? (I don't know much about French)
My guess would be that the intervewing manager was just translating English sentences directly into their French worded equivalent without actually following the rules/grammmar, and so it was confusing -- right?
I initially thought they might be attempting to read off a Google Translate conversion but I suppose if that interview was face to face then that'd be implausible.
My understanding of the situation is the exact same as yours. Which I find funny now, but obviously not that much back then.
The interview was in person, and she only used her laptop to take down notes. I remember thinking to myself "jeez she could at least have prepared some questions" but nope.
I'm glad it happened though, as I've told this story dozens of times since and it still manages to make me laugh :)
Was this a technical role?
Not really, it was technical support through tickets.
I don't exactly remember the specs, but French and SQL were the main requirements. Actually, more French than SQL.
Seeing as the entire point of FAANG having offices in Dublin at that point in time was a tax evasion strategy, they probably didn't give a shit about hiring or actual employees.
Some people say that things might start changing soon due to layoffs. I personally very much doubt it.
I've had quite a few too:
* The most recent one: I was doing an "AI assisted coding interview". The problem itself was simple. I gathered clear specs, I explained what I planned to do. I was supposed to use AI so I wrote down the main function signatures I expected (the API boundary) and wrote in the prompt what I wanted Claude to do. I wrote no code myself other than editing the output. When I got rejected, I was told it was because "I wrote too much code myself".
* Once I was asked a brain teaser. I solved the initial problem, but one of the follow-ups made it significantly more challenging. I wrestled with the problem for a few minutes, and realizing I was going around in circles I stated so and told the interviewer I wasn't sure how to proceed. I was expecting a tip or at least an acknowledgement, but I heard nothing. Blank silence with the interviewer staring at the screen. Since it was a zoom call, I thought my internet was down, but when I asked "hey, can you hear me?", he replied yes, and went back to radio silence. This was a pattern of the interviewer throughout the interview. Later on, after this question I implemented an algorithm and was asked for its time complexity. I mistakenly said O(n) (I forgot the initial sort), and the interviewer literally just stared at the screen and said nothing until after 10 seconds or so when I realized my mistake and corrected it - at which point he acknowledged and moved to the next question.
* Another one that happened two times (at different companies) is getting asked a very vague question, like "how do you fix a bug in production" (to which I reply with 'I try to replicate it locally, I go through logs, etc') and then being told by the recruiter the interviewer didn't like that my responses were "too generic".
Regarding the first you posted, it sounds very much like a "feature" sweatshop. Meaning that they have some product with customers, and will implement absolutely every single request they get from customers - and really just want prompt engineers that will ship out updates as quick as possible.
IME, there's been a rise of those for the past 1-2 years. They not only embrace AI/slop coding, it is a core part of their business model.
Unfortunately I fear this is going to become the standard in our industry. Everyone will be forced to rely on AI to "ship faster", to trade learning for short term speed.
I have a lot of interaction with mental health professionals, due to an organization in which I participate. Have, for the last 45 years.
Many, many of them are "Doctor, heal thyself" type folks. Definitely non-boring people. I am quite sure of this, for reasons that I won't go into, here.
Sorry it didn't work out, but you dodged a bullet. Take it from me.
I had a weird experience interviewing for a company recently. I'm in cyber security and I'm no way a SWE (my CV clearly shows that) and apart from the odd python/shell/powershell script I'm not a developer.
Job description matched 95% of my skills, and I thought it'd be a great opportunity to move to a more lean company, in a challenging industry. First interview with HR went awesome. For the second one I had a whiteboard to code a random problem. I never had a whiteboard before as I was never a SWE before. I tried my best but yeah not exacly what I've been doing for the last 15 years. There was a couple of system design questions which I think went well.
But anyway, received a rejection email a couple days after. What shocked me most was that I wasn't asked a single security question. Literally nothing about authZ, authN, threat modelling, vulnerabilities, frameworks, intelligence. Nada. All these things were listed in the role description, though.
I was upset but yeah, maybe they didn't know what they really wanted.
My worst interview was bringing my interviewer to a state of shock and hyperventilation from pointing out an error in their math formula they confidently showcased after telling me my prior answer was wrong. 10 minutes of intense breathing with a shocked expression on their face appeared, I was worried the person would collapse in front of me and didn't know what to do. In the end the interviewer collected themselves and told me they knew from the start I was right and were just testing me. And I instantly knew I failed that interview loop.
Two years ago I applied for a position in the Swiss Federal Gov's IT departement. The interview rounds went well, I liked the team and the atmosphere was good. They told me that I was the best fit from the people who have applied for the position. Before the last interview, which was with the HR and the "boss" of the departement, i got an email which described how the onboarding happens. So I went there on the next day and they started grilling me. I didn't put my pre University education in the CV and they thought that I'm hiding something from them. They also thought that i'm like 20 years younger than I am, although I told them multiple times how old I am and my age was as well in the CV. It ended without a contract signed. I had to send them all that stuff, like old school certificates (20 years old!) that weren't relevant for that position at all. After a month or so they told me that they do not want to proceed with my application since they found someone who better fits the position. The dude from the team called me and told me that the HR had vetoed me out. Crazy shit. You better don't throw your elementary school grades away!
HR is such a joke. The world would be better off without that farce.
Seems like they already knew who they wanted to hire, but HR wasn't in on it.
There is, and should be, a red flag for these situations. No make that RED flag. If you go into an interview that leaves you feeling the least bit helpless or at someone's mercy then run screaming. Not politely, not quietly. Just say to calmly to the person that you find the situation abusive. It is. As you go out, if you see anyone or have a chance to talk to anyone, just tell them you found that your interviewer to be personally abusive. That you will not be willing to take the position if it is offered, that you will share you perception with others around you and expect an apology.
Then fall down and appreciate that you did not end up in that situation. And tell everyone you know not to apply or work there.
Are you being glib or unrealistic?
You're going to find many red flags for any job, perhaps severe flags.
But you need a job.
Or you have to roll the dice because you have deep knowledge of the red flags for your current job.
Who finds 10/10 perfect jobs via an application process?
Note: I probably shouldn't be commenting since I don't need to apply for jobs and conditions here are likely different from yours.
There's a difference between "red flags" and "imperfections". Every team has faults, which if you're experienced at interviewing/working many places, are usually pretty easy to figure out. These are distinct from "red flags".
Early in your career it can be hard to distinguish the two, but once you've joined a company where there really were "red flags" you quickly learn to differentiate.
Many people are reading the author's interview uncharitably as simply misunderstanding how to answer non-technical question, but I have absolutely been through loops (thankfully rare ones) that did have a "let's press on sensitive issues and see how tough this candidate is" round (one place brought in a consultant who bragged about his experience working with hardened criminals and terrorists to build out a true psych profile on candidates, I declined after learning he had had some "trouble" at a previous high profile job)
Sounds like you've never worked for a truly toxic org, which is great. But, especially if you're interviewing with smaller startups (as the author mentioned), there is a lot more variance and some truly messed up teams (and some truly remarkable ones as well) out there. I've noticed that HN increasingly doesn't have people that work at startups any more, so many people are probably less familiar with what's out there.
I don't know if they still do it, but the fashion, back in the 1980s, was to give a Myers-Briggs-type test to candidates.
Maybe I'm wrong, but given the type of company it was (and likely, the C-suite people), I guess that they were doing something similar. I assume that they really did want to know about the person's non-worklife stuff.
I would consider that crossing boundaries. It's also possible that some of the questions might have been illegal (in the US).
I disagree that you'll find "many red flags for any job"
I've interviewed at dozens of companies, received and accepted or rejected at least 20 job offers in my life, and rarely encountered true red flags. This is very different than saying it's a perfect 10/10, all life is about tradeoffs. What GP is saying is that "there are things that are not worth any tradeoff, and you'll know them by ... ", which is good advice, esp for young people, who might be willing to make uncomfortable personal sacrifices to obtain a job.
We may be there someday, but we're not there yet.
> I disagree that you'll find "many red flags for any job"
If they're hiding the many red flags, that's the biggest red flag of all!
i agree with you, i've interviewed at a lot of companies, too, and seen only 1 red flag in retrospect. the flag was "we need to hire for budgetary reasons"
Sure, but there are some jobs that are so bad that this advice readily applies to. The sort of job that takes you away from your life, family and friends in a way not entirely unlike poverty does. It's good to recognize whether working somewhere will turn into this because it's... hell... working at those places.
Wacky question. But if you shouldn’t be commenting, why did you? Or was that one of those fake ‘I shouldn’t say anything’ that people do when they’re being jerks and don’t want to get called out?
I’d like some clarity. :)
Because I find it interesting how people make judgements: I found the comments enlightening.
I hoped to avoid anyone wasting effort trying to help me.
But yes, you can always be unaware of being a jerk.
Similarly, if you find yourself working for a manager who uses power and fear as a lever, stand up to them or walk away.
Yeah boss. Wise up. Get confident. Learn to set good boundaries.
Yikes. Good thing you didn't wind up there.
The furthest I've gone in these jazz style culture interviews is asking people what they do outside of work for fun. This was for fully remote async positions. And it was important to know you had other stuff going on because the mental/personal health risk in failing at remote work is massive and life altering.
If, through wherever that discussion went, I wasn't 100% sure that you could stand on your own feet and wouldn't sink into the abyss, it was impossible to move forward. It was a tough line to walk sometimes because you don't want to pry personally. But that doesn't appear to be a universal opinion, it turns out.
That question would not be received well in many places. What candidates do in their private time is none of your business.
Not sure why this is downvoted.
Even if I wanted to, these questions aren't allowed in the company I work for, along with feedback related to "team fit". This is dictated by execs, dictated by legal, because it has nothing to do with proving competence, and opens up for employment discrimination lawsuits since you're persuading them (you have to understand the power dynamic) to reveal potentially protected info. For example, if a man say "Oh, I go hiking with my boyfriend!", he could also say "They didn't hire me because I told them I was gay!". Or, even "I spend time with my kids." since familial status is a legally protected class where I am.
As a person who does interviews, I have exactly zero interest in what people do for fun. I just want competent people that are nice to work with (in a productivity sense), and I only have 45 minutes to prove that, knowing that nearly everyone fucking lies. I see it serving no purpose other than helping enforce some monoculture within the group, because, genuinely, why else would you ask about free time activities during an interview?
Related, the only time I've asked this was early on when I didn't know how to interview. The only time I've been asked this, and answered, was with people who had just started interviewing (small startups and new hiring managers).
Great comment. It's really shocking how close to the legal line Silicon Valley tech companies get, and the extent to which many of them actually cross way over the line. A huge number of interviewers I've encountered are in extreme need of training so they don't so casually put their companies at legal risk. If I was Lawful Evil, I could probably make a career out of just suing companies for discriminatory hiring practices, due to the various landmines poorly trained interviewers routinely step into.
BigTech seems to be the best at it. They tend to have rigorous training, and often have a "safe question bank" that interviewers pull questions from, which are all vetted by lawyers and are known not to put the company at legal risk.
I think that's the best you can do for culture fit, cause at the end of the day it's just "can they shoot the shit and are they pleasant to be around". You can't really know a person technically or socially until they've been in the job for at least a little bit though.
Hmmm. Maybe overindexing on anecdata. Did that one guy go a bit crazy once?
I think you gotta trust adults to be adults.
Years ago I interviewed at a company that later became infamous owing to a series of posts on TheDailyWTF (https://thedailywtf.com/articles/Virtudyne_0x3a__The_Foundin...).
It was... weird. I had a friend who was working there, and I needed a gig. At the time, in the city I was in, this constituted a pretty big advantage.
The role would've been customer facing but technical, which is where I've spent my career. I answered some reasonable panel questions, and then they had me give a preso on any technical topic I liked. I'm good at that, so I aced it.
Then we got to other questions: specifically, questions from me.
"Are you currently profitable?"
They were not. This, in and of itself, isn't a problem, but it leads to the next question.
"At your current burn rate, how many months of operating cash do you have on hand?"
(murmuring) "Two, but our founder funds us as we need it."
"Are there specific milestones that are tied to additional capital infusions, or any formal agreement, or is it all just at his discretion?"
"It's discretionary but he's very committed to the company."
Having already had negative experiences with one-rich-dude companies, I thanked them for their time and left. I was VERY surprised when they called me a couple weeks later to MAKE A SERIOUSLY LOWBALL OFFER, which I literally laughed at. At least the dude who made the call seemed to understand the company was insane.
My friend jumped ship shortly after. He had more tolerance for Weird Startup Shit because of family money, but it got too weird even for a guy who didn't need the income, if that tells you anything.
I had an interview many years ago, that wasn't nearly as traumatic, but the interviewer asked me about my failures like 4 different ways.
- Tell me about a time you made a professional mistake. - Tell me about your biggest failure. - Tell me when you last shipped a bug. - Tell me when you took down production.
Never asked me about my accomplishments, or the positives. I'm prepared for being asked about making mistakes, and have a few examples ready to give depending on the job I'm interviewing for, but to get asked so many times in a row was just deflating.
I'm glad I didn't get that job.
I conducted a few hundred software engineering interviews while working for a non-tech corp. Aside from technical problem solving & programming interviews we'd also ask a few behavioural questions -- including asking about times where the candidate had made a mistake at work, or a time at work where they were very frustrated.
What we were looking for
- people unwilling to admit they'd ever made a mistake -- red flag
- people who could reflect on the situation and say what they'd do differently in the future
- ideally, people who could use their mistake / failure / bad situation as an example of how they then took initiative to improve things by doing blah blah blah
People who were able to give an ideal response had clearly practised for this kind of question & knew how to play this part of the interview game.
Behaviours valued by one type of potential employer may not be valued by another. Small businesses & startups might value folks who take initiative and have a bias for action. In contrast, regulated megacorps might value folks who are great at consulting stakeholders and getting buy in before making changes, and steer clear of people they believe will go off and do stuff unilaterally.
One rule of thumb for handling these kinds of behavioural questions is "STAR" -- situation, task, action, result. Use the prompt for the question as a way to pick an example, then figure out how to frame an answer that shows you doing something to improve the situation. There's a fair chance that your interviewers are trying to mash your response into a STAR format in their own notes, even if they don't hint for you to respond in this way.
Right, I'm aware, and like I said, I expect those questions, and I have several examples I'm prepared for, and can tailor it to the interviewer. Like if it was a devops role, I could talk about when I took down production and what I learned from it. Or I could talk about when I failed to properly manage a junior if the role was more management-oriented and what I learned from it. Or when I badly architected a feature, and what I learned from it, and so on.
What I _wasn't_ prepared for was 4+ of those questions in a row, and _zero_ questions about my experience, or strengths, or anything else. The questions were more of the type "when did you stop beating your wife?". In retrospect, I think the interviewer already had someone they wanted to hire, but were forced into it by HR due diligence or something.
Where I work we divide up topics and questions so we aren't all asking the same thing in an interview. This guy might have been given the "handling failures" scenario.
It's possible that's what happened here and the interviewer also just wasn't very good. Some people just really suck at interviewing.
I think a lot of technical people interpret interview questions literally. Like yes of course the prompt starts with a negative - but you don't actually have to answer the question fully and literally, this isn't a college exam.
You could for example start talking about how you thought something was a colossal failure only to realize looking back that it was an incredible learning experience and how sometimes the only way to learn big lessons like that is by trying the experiment. And how it's only a failure if you stop. But you kept going so it wasn't really a failure.
Honestly we should probably take a page out of politicians' or media trained people's playbooks and not even answer the question as asked but relentlessly steer towards what you really want to talk about.
I too am capable of waffling to an interviewer. My favourite "took down production" story is a segue into why, when your interns ask you to look over the command they're about to run against the prod environment because they're not 100% comfortable, you should do it, and a broader chat about infrastructure-as-code and review processes.
I don't think it's good practice for the interviewer to require the ability to dissemble from software engineers, though.
Is it too much to ask for interviewers not to ask questions where the "right" answer is to give a BS answer?
Interviewing is difficult IMO - asking imperfect people to judge imperfect people in a short time.
In my experience, which is not that great, it's the attitude that people have which is more important than the perfect answers. You're usually hiring for a team so someone who is prepared to be decent to others is essential and IMO their 10xness is much less important than this.
Then I want someone who is interested in computing or things in general - not purely motivated by the money. That sort of person who is going to try to do a good job for the sake of it and who wants to learn something new - who will be ok with doing things they're not yet experts at.
These 2 sort of areas are not easy to have together IMO. If I find people like this I am eager to work with them.
What I get from being the interviewee is that other people are not always looking for these characteristics. They're often looking for someone they can dominate. This is like my point about being part of a team but taken further obviously. In a team you cannot have everything your own way but you get to put your point across and see if you can convince others, as a peon in a feudal system you will have nothing your own way and must not only do but also say and pretend to think what you are told.
Bullshit is just really a test for whether you're amenable to being part of the propaganda. Some people have no trouble doing this but I think there's something about being a programmer that tends away from fakeness. That's not to say that we haven't got an overload of bullshitters but at the root you have to be able to make things that work.
I've been on both sides of the interviewing process and I agree with you.
It's the questions like "what is you greatest weakness?" that tick me off where an honest answer at most places will probably kill you chance of getting the job. Instead you are told that the "right" answer is to pose a strength as a weakness. I don't see the point of asking questions like these. What are you learning about the candidate from getting the expected BS response?
Ironically, I think having the self awareness to recognize your own weaknesses is a great strength, but this question subverts this.
The best that I think you can say about it is that working for such people wouldn't be fun.
Truth is, most people who interview people have no idea how to do it. I know because I've done hundreds and nobody ever trained me or explained to me how to do it properly. Over the years I've seen so many people on both sides of the table that I developed a method and I got semi-functional at it but so many people doing interviews shouldn't that bad experiences should be almost expected by now.
I've done at least a few for every company I've worked for. Ironically, the smallest and worst-managed one is also the one that put the most effort into training me on how to do interviews. I'm not sure what to make of that.
Years ago, I was interviewing a woman with a teammate of mine. He loved to ask the question: "why did you leave your last job". He asked it (as usual). She looked at him and said: "I was being sexually harassed by my manager. I reported it to HR, but they did nothing. I left to protect myself." Brutal. It was like an axe was thrown into this guys heart. Short story: He never asked that question again.
But did she get the job?
Heh, I once interviewed at a place that asked me to sit the Oxford Capacity Analysis test as part of the process. (The Scientology personality test, for those unaware.)
I politely declined, which seemed to confuse the interviewer, but he moved right along. I still got the job lol
What was the job like? That's quite the thing to move past and then still get the job on
A bit culty, if I never hear talk about hatting and going on post again I'll be quite happy. So many practices and stuff that I didn't realize were Scientology-related until I looked them up later
Quite! I draw a hard line at 'cult recruitment' in an interview. Personal preference.
Wth, are you people crazy? Never, under any circumstances, don’t share personal details during job interviews.
Instead have a list prepared with the BS question list like: what is your greatest achievement, what is your biggest failure, how did you deal with some difficult relationship in the team, how did you unblock some item etc etc. Use chatgpt for preparation, what you say there has to be very vague and not pointing to any of your previous employers or colleagues.
No way this part of the interview process should be something where you, excuse my French, display your underwear, but instead you should be able to prove that you are capable to deal with some difficult inter human situations.
Yeah, this - interview is a performance after all
I also had a remote interview for an Australian agency company. I went to their website and it was all Australian folks, name, photos, etc. Their website also has a video of them working inside the office, having a meeting.
When I joined the call it was just a couple of Indian persons, with the video resolution of one fella so low, it was hard to make up his face. The other one was a female which did not turned on her camera for reasons she mentioned something she was sick and don't like turning it on.
I had lots of remote interview, but this one is just borderline creepy.
That sounds quite scammy, like it could have been designed to scam applicants or people that wanted to hire that agency.
Then again maybe giving an image of a more normal "white/multicultural" Australian office might make it easier to sell services into the Australian market.
Automattic, the company behind Wordpress, is so proud of they way they are working and the clear process for interviews. They invite you to a Slack channel, you get information before hand so you know exactly what they are looking for.
When I interviewed with them I've already worked with PHP for 20 years, even working on the Zend Framework, experiences in Javascript, HTML and CSS, leading projects for the longest time. But the interviewer I had seemed not to be interested very much. Shortly after the interview they threw me out of the channel, so I couldn't get to the information they shared yet they told me "Come back in a year when you are more experienced". Experienced in what? Well they never answered.
Of all interviews I had during that time they were the worst. Not really human. They saying "Automatticians are curious, driven, compassionate, tenacious, autonomous, friendly, independent, collaborative, communicative, supportive, self-motivated, and amazing with GIFs." I haven't even seen them posting a GIF.
Earlier this year I was told I failed an interview because when asked why I wanted to join a company, my answer "could apply to other companies in the same stage of life." They apparently required me to be _uniquely_ interested in their company. There were other oddities about their interview process.
Some interviewers just want to feel special.
Thats the thing I love about recruiters. I won't be looking for a job, and a recruiter calls me about one that sounds interesting.
Come interview time someone will ask why I want to work there. My answer is: "You called me, why should I want to work here."
Assume that every singlemotherfucking breathing human you find in your life wants or at least likes to feel special, and that any company that asks you that question wants you to massage their ego a little bit.
Don't think much about it, just believe what I am telling you. It is going to save you a lot of grief.
That question may be a little bit praise seeking (especially in other contexts), but it's also a way to ask if you did any research on the company, or do you just spray and pray.
If you took time to do a little research and validate that you fit more than 'i need a pay check and you have paychecks' that's valuable for the company. Your judgement may be poor, but you self screened, so that's an extra screening.
1) They reached out to me. 2) My answer was applicable and accurate, but insufficiently _unique_ for them.
Dale Carnegie floating around this thread a lot.
Remembering (and using!) someone's name is a magic spell, too.
> Remembering (and using!) someone's name is a magic spell, too.
When it's done to me, it's the magic spell of "I Distrust You". A time or two is fine, as is its usage if one is -say- in a group conversation where it can be difficult to understand to whom one is speaking, or -say- one needs to get my attention when I'm focusing on something else.
In my many years of personal experience, I've found that people who behave as if speaking my name to me is a magic spell absolutely do not have my best interests at heart. At best, they want to manipulate me into doing something that I don't wish to do. I recognize that my opinion is not universal, but I am absolutely not the only person on earth who's like this.
Isn’t the magic in the "time or two"? For example I always make it a point to thank call center people by name after they’ve helped me, even though their name comes up exactly once before that point (when they introduce themselves). It’s just extending a basic courtesy, treating someone like a human being. (Of course, remembering the name of who was helping you is not just basic courtesy but also useful for other reasons.)
Seems the message got distorted from "remembering people's names shows you care about them" to "use people's names unnecessarily or in bad faith". I was pretty upset by that Apple Intelligence ad where Bella Ramsey pulls up someone's name and then pretends she remembered it – yuck.
In defense of Dale Carnegie he always said that for this to work, you need first to learn to GENUILY CARE about other people.
The worst thing about even relatively-good advice of this sort, like Dale's, is that applying it well requires being so good at these kinds of things that you probably didn't need the advice in the first place.
People who've read a couple of these books and are trying to use them are usually transparent, and it hurts way more than it helps. If they weren't inept at applying the advice, they probably wouldn't have needed it. Especially if they're not very young—if they're older and haven't picked up most of that stuff through natural observational skills and curiosity-driven trial-and-error, their odds of reading and practicing their way to significant improvement seem low.
This goes for "nonviolent communication" and similar, too. Trying to use these things if you weren't already a natural just red-flags "I'm trying to manipulate you".
"First, genuinely care" is only a little less useless than "be attractive; don't be unattractive". In practice, most of the folks with a problem in that area aren't going to read the book and do the work on that bit before trying to apply the rest. Those without such a problem, likely don't need the book.
As nonsense as this is, you should always have an answer at the ready for why you’re uniquely interested in them. If they don’t ask, volunteer it.
If their interviewing results in a handful of qualified candidates, guess which one they’re going to go with?
I always counter the question by asking them why they are uniquely interested in me. That way they usually skip the question. (You should still have an answer ready for all of the obvious questions)
Every time I've been asked this question, I answer with total honesty up to and including the one-word answer "money." I got an offer with that, by the way.
I'd prefer not to work for a firm that's smelling its own farts. I'm happy to have worked for several firms where I really believed strongly in the product and the mission, and I've left companies when I felt they had lost sight of their mission. But at the end of the day, it's a job. I give you labor and expertise, you give me money.
What were the other oddities?
I mean... He knew, you knew (or should have known), but it's part of the silly little dance you have to do to flatter their ego.
Imagine having a first date with a girl and saying "you're basically the only one who would talk to me on tinder, but I could date someone else". Technically correct, still not something you say unless you're pretty far on the spectrum.
15 years ago a FAANG flew me from England to the US for a grad interview. The HR recruiter met me for a coffee before the tech interviews started and said she'd ask me some gentle questions to ease me into the day.
She opened with "do you believe in god?" Not knowing laws or workers' rights in a foreign country then I had to give a very stunted, mumbled response. I complained after I got back home and was told she should not have asked that question.
One thing I've done in the past when interviewing candidates is to create a hypothetical situation where the candidate doesn't know how to proceed, like some difficult technical issue. I'd also tell the candidate that their manager and peers are all unavailable. Then, I'd ask how they'd go about trying to resolve the issue and proceed. Honestly, I was never looking for the correct resolution. Rather, I was just looking that the candidate had some basic process for troubleshooting and figuring stuff out on their own. If someone said, "I'd search Stack Overflow until I found the solution.", that was usually good enough. However, all too often, candidates just couldn't understand what was being asked, like they independent troubleshooting was an unrealistic skillset. I'd say, "Just walk me through how you'd approach solving this issue." Some candidates would fully melt down, saying, "I don't know. I can't proceed."
I would've ended the interview. "I don't want to waste any more of your time. It's clear to me I won't be a good fit here. Thank you for the consideration." <end call>
I can share mine. It was a job interview with one of the fastest growing companies. They were expanding sales positions in APEC region, specifically Korea. I am not really into sales, but I thought okay because it was such a big opportunity to work for this company.
I got three rounds of interviews including technical ones, then I had an interview with my potential team lead. The first thing he asked was about my MBTI personality test, which I hate and didn't pay much attention to learn mine. It seemed every encounter in Korea began with this MBTI test, but common in a job interview? I honestly answered him that I don't know my MBTI and just described my personalities in general. Then he started describing his MBTI and told me that I may not be the best fit with him because this and that.
A few days after, I got an email "... sorry". I don't want to believe that his MBTI question attributed a lot to this decision.
I've had some rather interesting interviews myself, with several of my most ridiculous stories ironically being from here.
One guy -- the reason I started building a tracking tool, after I noticed that his email was autofilling when I went to send him a message -- ghosted me after I wasn't available the first day and time he suggested. Which was also a holiday.
Another place, a stealth startup, was a panel interview with their three founders -- two tech leads and the CEO. The tech leads actually had really interesting discourse, and I wish I could remember the name of the guy who told me that "testing means never having to use my brain for the same thing twice." It actually never occurred to me before that an interview could provide you with useful knowledge, let alone that an interviewer could make a point of imparting those things on purpose. However, their CEO asked me to commit 5 years of my life up while also refusing to tell me anything at all about what the company did.
Within the past year I also encountered one that expressly asked me for things I didn't like about a previous employer; badgered me when I didn't want to elaborate about a specific, traumatizing, walking HR complaint of a man; and then -- after I described vaguely how organizations and their leadership change over time -- explicitly asked me to rate that individual on a scale.
(The other two were a while ago, and Idk that they still exist, but the last company was SerpAPI, who advertises here fairly regularly.)
I don't think this was a job interview. I think they needed research for their own project, and they used you as a test subject under the cover of a interview for a job position. They probably tested what type of questions work best to get information from the subject in their project.
One fun trick I learn (or more like two tricks) is to start working with the person during the interview. If you do a lot of interviews you get to see a lot of different ways to do it. Their job is to do interviews but they never get to see how others do it. You can tell them what they are doing right, what interesting approaches others take, what you would do and how they can improve.
If I notice they cant talk about improving the way they do things I cant get out of there fast enough. It's one of those places where everything goes wrong but you have to actively pretend it's not.
Beats my worst interview. For some reason I mentioned that I like reading. The guy then demanded to list the last ten books I read. I just named ten random books that I had read at some point in my life, even in childhood. Pretty bizarre. Glad I didn’t get that job.
Asking you to name a book or two to continue the conversation is fine, but 10 is ridiculous. That interviewer literally pulled the "oh you like _____ band?! name 5 of their albums" meme on you.
Asking for a list of 10 is a pretty specific version of a natural conversational follow up "what have you read lately?" Sounds like a coder with bad social skills. Like a bad sitcom where I could totally see a Sheldon asking that as a response
The little bit I knew about the guy, coder with bad social skills does seem to be a fit.
I can imagine getting myself into a similar fix. I'd like to think I'd calmly clarify that while I enjoy it I don't get through as many as quickly as I'd like; I'm currently reading blah, and previously blah and blah, but I can't recall the last ten.
Because they're presumably just trying to call bullshit, since it can sound like such an easy probably oft-recomended 'hobby' to say you have, so it's 'oh yeah well what have you actually read recently then', not actually 'I now therefore expect you to have perfect recall over your read catalogue'.
I got "tell me what you're passionate about" last time, and I'm curious what a bad reply would be, because I showed them a silly comic I drew on my phone. Apparently that was fine.
A pattern I’ve noticed on high performing teams is that individuals were or are excellent at something, anything. I suppose that could be an interview question, but people may not want to share their competitive barbershop quartet videos with a stranger.
“Passionate? Jethro Tull should be in the rock and roll hall of fame.”
I would go by something like:
"The industrial society and its future" - Theodor Kaczinski.
"The communist manifesto" - Karl Marx.
"Rules for Radicals" - Saul Alinsky
"Hitler's War" - David Irving
"The Souls of Black Folk" - W.E.B. Du Bois
"Capital in the Twenty-First Century" - Tom Pickety
"Las venas abiertas da America Latina" - Eduardo Galeano
"The question of Palestine" - Edward Said.
"Grapes of Wrath" - John Steinbeck.
"The conquest of Bread" - Kropotkin
"Problems of Leninism" - Josef Stalin
If adventurous, I'd cite another one I've read that should not be mentioned amongst educated XXI century folks, as they think reading a book means you agree with the author.
Not the last 10 books I've read, but books I've read along my life and that would maybe make the guy think twice before considering making me an offer.
Non zero chance you make a friend by citing the list! Or you get the boot. Especially when the Atlas Shrugged reading startup founder is deciding.
Oh, read this one too.
The funny thing is that I consider myself pretty much a conservative. But I am a small c Conservative, I distrust big corporations, big military, imperialism, and as a catholic, I abhor social darwinism. Of course I want my moral values to be the values of the society where I live in, but I prefer a world where this happens by evangelization, persuasion instead of cohercion.
I believe in private property, but I also believe that ultimatelly we are all children of God, so all us should partake in the world God has given to us, and everyone of us should have a job that give us dignity and purpose, access health care, health foods, a roof over our heads, a warm and inclusive community and a lot of second chances.
People who are excited about these ideas are prone to be communist enjoyers. Which in practice is a braindead path, as demonstrated by countless examples.
I mean, what's the cutoff for something like that. The last book you read seems innocent enough. The last 3? No red flag yet... 10 though is kind of a lot.
I couldn’t even tell you the last ten I’d read recently, and I thoroughly enjoy reading.
I'm not sure I could name ten books, period.
"Actually, I just pulled up your goodreads profile, and it looks like your eighth-most recent book was 50 shades of grey. In addition to having a faulty memory, you're reading work-inappropriate material. Finally, you read that in 2021, so clearly you don't care about reading /that/ much. Dismissed!"
I just said I enjoy it, not that I do it often.
Honestly asking for any specific number is a deeply weird and off-putting question to ask.
"Mein Kampf, ten times."
> Even if you hire a cracked engineer, it’s probably not gonna be a good experience all-around if you can’t make a human connection.
"Cracked engineer" is throwing me, but maybe I've just never seen the word cracked used this way before. Should it be "crack", like "crack team"?
It's a fairly common english phrase that originated out of the gaming culture of the US in the mid 2000-2010s.
"He's so good (plays aggressively) he must be on crack" sort of became "he's cracked", etc. Now that the people who were killing CoD lobbies are writing code full time or running companies, its seeped out.
Actually I think "it's cooked" came from this as well.
I have heard this term and used it myself but wasn't aware of the etymology.
Funny enough, I've only ever heard 'crack team' used in a professional context.
If 'cooked' diffuses to corporate at the same rate then I'm very much looking forward to 'cooking the ops' during standup in 2035 :P
"Crack team" long predates video games and even crack cocaine. I think it is related to the phrase "get cracking", i.e., "get working", but I wasn't able to find a clear etymological line. One possibility is it refers to gunfire, but I wonder if it refers to harvesting, cracking corn, etc.
What if it's actually Craic team though ?
IMHE everybody wants to be on the craic team - they play hard, work hard and go hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic
Oxford claims "Crack Shot" to refer to an expert marksman goes all the way back to 1841.
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/crack-shot_n?tl=true
Notably, if someone is "cooked", it's bad. If someone is "cooking", it's often (but not necessarily) positive, most commonly in the form "let him/her cook" or "he's/she's cooking".
I have no idea where "cooked" came from, but "cooking" seems to be from the very old phrase "cooking up" which broadly meant something like "creatively making" and didn't specifically refer to food.
I believe it was emergent from FPS gaming culture, particularly following the popularity of Apex Legends. In Apex Legends you have an energy shield which serves as a buffer of hit points. When playing cooperatively it is useful to communicate when this energy shield is "cracked", thus the line "they are cracked" emerged. This originally meant a target player's shield is down in Apex Legend specifically, but it was then the Fortnite (and broader FPS) community which took this phrase and warped it to mean someone is precise or an excellent shot. Today it is certainly used in the context the original poster intended.
edit: Looking again, this may be overstated. Apex-era gaming culture likely helped popularize the usage, but considering older idioms like "crack shot," the actual etymological root is more likely there.
I have never seen it used in this way before around 2021, but it has become popular since then among the Twitter and YouTube tech influencer circle. Maybe that's where OP picked it up.
I'm with you, came here to ask this too. This is how I would have read it:
"Crack engineer" someone who is an excellent engineer, I feel like this goes back to at least the early 20th century, certainly long before gaming culture.
"Cracked engineer" a damaged person who is an engineer
Shrug. Language changes all the time!
same, i've heard "crack engineer/team/etc" but cracked sounds to me like u fucked em mate
My worst job interview ever - in-house creative team at telecom company in downtown Chicago.
I walk into a darkened cubicle farm, down to the only lit corner office for a 'lunch interview'.
Interviewer is sitting at their desk eating a hot pocket on a paper plate.
Didn't even offer me any.
First interview I walked out of.
Not the last.
Something I've learned over the years is how much it matters to feel good about the people you work with, and how much intuition matters in interviews and hiring generally (for both sides!).
It doesn't matter how much you enjoy your tasks or how good your comp is (unless it's enough to retire early) if you dread your colleagues and/or work environment.
I've declined customers or offers.
I think it's important for two reasons:
-For career growth and learning new skills (which eventually translate to more money), it's important to be in an environment where you want to crack tricky problems and exchange ideas with colleagues. Not to talk about the fact that good working relationships pay dividends later on for networking and such.
-We spend so much of our limited time on Earth working that we should enjoy it as much as possible, which, at least for me, is a function of liking who I work with and how I work.
[dead]
Boy oh boy, the shenanigans I saw when it comes to job interviews are enough to write a book, not even joking, it was easier to start a business than getting hired as an employee, because building a business you talk with mature, goal oriented adults, who only care about what value that business will add. In jobs, that’s the last they care about nowadays, from morons in the HR, to power hungry managers, to contracts that I would say borderline exploitation with minimum regulations to protect the employees.
One job they got offended to ask for a negotiation, despite it was them who changed the original job posting. Another job took 4 interviews (plus one redundant, as it seems they forgot they had that interview with me) over 4 months only to send a generic “thank you” email. Another job, the interviewer seems was hostile just to have the interview. Another one the questions in the first interview were stupid, supposedly technical but extremely shallow, like tabs or spaces.. yeah, I got asked that! Another one refused to change a word in the contract because it’s a “template”, it felt like applying to a service rather than a job. And many other stories, like a company sent me a ticket for an interview in another country, only to find the team is disconnected from what the recruiter wants, they paid for the trip tho.
European companies seem slightly better than North American ones, but for some reasons bringing up the money talk early is a taboo topic? Had few calls and noticed that, they got shocked asking such question, even though it’s great to know so we don’t waste our time.
I never negotiated money, funny how that sounds, but it isn’t my no1 priority, all I wanted is a mature workplace and working with goal oriented people where nothing else matters that much than delivering the results, it seems it was impossible.
I believe the authors reading of the situation: its likely the interviewer wasn’t intentionally being cruel; most likely its this startups “unique thing that makes them stand out”; quirky twists that every startup attempts to make them stand out from the rest.
Honestly though, I think it ultimately worked out best for all parties. Its clear that the startup didn’t value someone that could be so vulnerable, and hopefully the author ultimately found a place that did.
My personal perspective is that for super early/founding engineer type roles you absolutely have to bring a greater part of yourself to work; you will be working over the weekends, working late, celebrating together and such… generally that environment is closer to a college club or fraternity than a corporation.
I've only had one terrible interview as the candidate, but there's one I conducted myself that weighs on my conscience. It was my first job in IT, and I was still a student back then with no real experience to speak of. A young guy came in to our company who was clearly very stressed, and I kept asking him hard questions - probably not to actually assess his competence, but to prove that I was the one who knew my stuff. That was 20 years ago and I don't remember the details anymore, I only remember that he was stressed and I just treated him cruelly with those questions. It wasn't anything offensive, I just keep recalling that moment and I regret it. Today, if I were conducting any interviews, I would make a real effort to make the person feel comfortable, even if they don't know everything or are a weak candidate.
Did the same once and I am still pretty ashamed; I must have been in a bad mood or something. I remember asking this guy who just got out of university to explain what "volatile" means in C.
A hiring manager asked me a question like those. I said: "sorry I'm not prepared, I don't remember from the top of my head." Right before that interview I was a solo founder. He said something like: "ok, so you just focus on the work?" "Yes." I got the job.
Psych eval without consent is unethical to say the least. And I disagree, the culture fit is not important at all - the way of working, the products, the attitude towards work all good, but the culture fit is a scam.
> covering such lovely topics as the hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
> talking about failed relationships, family struggles, and interpersonal challenges in previous work environments.
I think that's an interpretation that wasn't necessary (though I agree they're terrible and risky interview questions). I'd stick to hard challenges is my professional life, hard problems I had to solve, etc. My personal life is none of their business.
And I think there's the possibility you may have been rejected for sharing too much. But I agree that kind of question does invite sharing too much.
Not the OP, but having been in many similar interviews, I feel like it's an easy trap to fall into, especially if you've not developed a good bit of curmudgeonly cynicism.
At least when I've done these interviews, they will be extremely friendly, and they will at least act interested in everything you have to say. It's very easy to overshare when you think the audience is actually interested in what you have to say.
I'm an oversharer, so I'm absolutely vulnerable to that trap. It's important to remind ourselves not to fall for it.
My worst interview was decades ago where the building was a walk-up and the office was on the 8th or 9th floor, something absurd. It was winter, I had layers of warm clothing on, and I walked into the interview a sweaty disaster and when my sweat became drippingly apparent panic kicked in and made it even worse. At the end of the ordeal I had to walk down the steps which also sucked.
I once had two onsite interviews with a 20 minute "break" in between. I was given a surprise crossword puzzle during the break to see (if I had a rich vocabulary?, excelled at puzzles?, could come up with synonyms under pressure?). The puzzle was then evaluated and discussed during the following interview.
The job was entirely focused on numbers in spreadsheets.
Cultural fit is important. You don't want to work with people who are not morally aligned with you or the company. A rotten apple can ruin the entire basket, but the problem with these cultural fit interviews is that the people who run them often use the wrong framework for their questions.
Who cares if you had trauma when you were 16? Will a past trauma affect your future at the company? Does the interviewer have a psychology degree to conduct such an interview?
In any case, do people have the right to a second chance if they did something morally questionable in the past? I've conducted over 2,000 interviews in the past 20 years, and I've learned a lot. The best indicators of a good candidate are not questions like "Tell me your weaknesses" or "Tell me about a mistake you made."
The best indicators are whether the person spent time learning about your project, your company, the people who work there, the technologies, the product, the vision, the financial status, and the investors. That shows more interest than answering "Tell me about your hobbies."
Interview at Microsoft Serbia, around 2018-2019, for a general Junior Software Engineer position.
My expertise was in Machine Learning (this was way before LLMs and the current AI craze).
The first guy knew what ML was, but advised me to round up my knowledge with low level coding, cause ML is too abstract and isn't very useful.
2nd and 3rd guy gave me a mix of stupid brain teasers and high school math, coupled with questions about obscure C++ libraries (despite me clearly saying I've only done C++ back in high school and don't really ever use it).
The 4th guy, however, was the actual bizarre part. He was completely introverted or something, kept looking at the desk and eventually whispered to me:
HIM: Write an API for a book with chapters. It should be able to flip to the next chapter and flip to the next page.
ME: Sure, no problem, that's trivial. By the way, when the user is at the last page of a chapter and calls nextPage, should it give null or skip to the first page of the next chapter? What if it's the last chapter/page and the user is calling nextChapter/nextPage? Give null? Throw error?
HIM: Write an API to flip the pages and chapters of a book.
ME: Yes, I understand. But if I'm at the last page should it give null?
HIM: The book has pages and chapters. Your API should be able to navigate to the next page and next chapter.
ME: So you keep repeating the question over and over again, and not answering my question.
HIM: I don't know how I can say this any clearer, the book has chapters and pages and your API should navigate to the next chapter and page.
ME: You know, I'm just gonna write this with the null thing in it and we'll go over it line by line.
After a minute or so, I go through the lines and we get to the null part, I look at him while I'm explaining the line and his face shows no pattern recognition to my question. After I finish going through the code, he just picks up his stuff and says "Thank you for your time".
So was this a behavioral interview in disguise or what even happened there?
This reads to me as if he wasn't prepared for the interview and said the first open-ended design question he could think of.
My worst interview: The recruiter forgot about me. Then joined 5 mins late, asking me if we had actually scheduled something.
I said yes, so assembled 3 people 20 mins to listen to my presentation on my PhD work. No questions at the end of the presentation, sent a mail 2 mins later telling me they are not moving forward.
Why can't people own to their mistakes and reschedule
Sounds like you dodged a bullet my guy.
Genuinely opening up is a mistake. The incentives for these clearly mean that they actually select for candidates who are capable of glibly blagging their way through an extended conversation without saying anything inconsistent, weird, compromising or of substance.
This isn’t usually a required engineering skill. I’m guessing the interview was designed for salespeople and/or middle management.
I'd say it depends - evaluate the vibes. I spent 8y and recently 7y at a company where I genuinely responded with what I thought. But I'd say it's a matter of the audience - some people want to hear certain things and deciding if you can share these thoughts is up to you. It also allowed me to make decisions - if people don't care what I think and want sycophancy is this the company I want to be working at? I understand though it depends on one circumstances = you have to grin and bear it
Yeah, definitely just tell them what they want to hear on the personal question front ("tell me about a time..."). There's zero benefit to being truthful and zero downside to blagging it.
My worst was right out of college. It was for a really small company that needed a web developer.
I showed up, and it was two guys that were around my age.
They seemed annoyed by the interview, it was completely unprofessional, and I was told I didn't get the job because I didn't like a specific sports team.
I found my next job the next week at 3x the pay.
I've met the same type interview recently, but not on the phone, it's a online web forms. I just write those not that important and positive memories, because I don't trust them from the start. Also, on the next step of the form, there's a statement shows they will use AI to analyze my personality. I feel uncomfortable and told them I don't like their way of interview and just end it.
I had an eerily similar situation in a behavioral interview I had with a company where I had a very strong internal referral from a very senior person. I didn't have any time at all to prepare for the interview and was super stressed out that week because of a cascade of work and personal problems all hitting me at once. In hindsight I probably should have asked for the interview to be postponed by a couple of weeks.
In short, I hadn't prepared at all for the interview loop, so I didn't have any of the standard responses "ready to go" for the behavioral interview. We ended up meandering into a bunch of stuff from my personal life, and I didn't have the presence of mind to course-correct it myself. It didn't help that the interviewer actively encouraged me to keep talking about the personal non-work experiences. I got the impression that the interviewer was self-deluded into thinking that they could do some kind of psychological evaluation of me, even though they clearly (in hindsight) had no formal education or training in doing that sort of thing.
Anyway, same story. After a few days, generic rejection letter, and no more communications. I can only imagine my interview loop feedback must have been horrific to overcome what I am certain was a strong internal referral by a very senior and well-respected employee at said company who I had worked with closely for several years (and he'd sung my praises at our previous company many a time when giving perf feedback). I keep replaying the behavioral interview in my mind and realize I must have come across really awkwardly to the hiring manager. In the end I felt much like the author of this blog post did, personally rather than professionally rejected.
I'm resolved no longer suffering pseudo-psychological behavioral interviews. If I get any questions that I feel cross the line between professional and personal, I'll firmly respond that I do not feel comfortable discussing non-work-related issues in a job interview.
I am sorry to hear this. If you were perceiving the space as safe and then you felt abused, I think this is something you should report. Maybe people working in mental health startup are experts in mental health, but there are very strict rules and guidelines that forbid abusing this "power" with other people, especially when unwanted, uncertain etc. During my therapy I've learned that the therapeutist is having monthly update on their actions with their supervisor, so they wouldn't do things that are for example unethical, or direct me in the wrong direction for some reason.
As other people mention in comment, this surely have been error of the interviewer, and in my opinion the feedback should be left.
I'd say I've been fairly luck as far interviews go. The vast, vast majority have been about as straight forward and by the book as they come. Completely predictable ones.
But I've had some iffy ones.
One was for a small boutique investment firm, for a data scientist type role. I'm not sure if it was part of their "stress testing" routine, but I was given a bash terminal where I had to SSH into some server, find data, and write a program to manipulate said data, and write it to a database. The problem was very straight forward, BUT one of the interviewers was practically hanging over my should for 60 minutes straight, commenting every other minute "No, no, you should...", "This looks wrong", "Have you actually done this before?", "Why don't you know..."
I tried my best to just be professional, and walk him through my thought process. In the end my program ended up doing exactly what it was supposed to, with optimal performance - but I couldn't get out of there fast enough. I thought to myself that I'd rather go unemployed than work under that level of passive-aggressive micromanagement.
But in the big picture, that's nothing. I have friends that have experience explicit age, sex, and race discrimination. Ranging from "Why should we hire [the caste this person "belongs" to]?" to "You better not get pregnant if we decide to hire you"
> "Have you actually done this before?"
I would have got up and walked out at this one, personally.
But at least they let you know how working there would be during the interview :)
The worst I ever had was a dream to others, possibly.
The way I knew that I was not going to work there is they had a net $72,000 401k matching - the maximum allowed.[0]
Suffice to say, if that is what they have to do to keep folks on, it's gotta be some really crazy stuff going on in there.
[0] I remember it being 25% at the time, but the IRS says that it's a set dollar amount these days, so I will go with that.
You turned down a job because they had good benefits?
After reading your blog : I would say : interview depend totally on candidate on how he/she wants to drive, its never like an QnA, unless you are giving a HR round. its like : you say something : other person asks more about it : you explain more. and this is how an interview is driven.
The feeling you expressed is a true feeling of a candidate after the interview : but you are thinking that you did everything best : I would suggest to think from interviewer's shoes as well : how you gave interview : if you are someone taking interview : and candidate gave this responses : would you hire him or not
if not then what could he/she do better...
Reflect like this...
They showed you their true colours early and saved you the hustle of joining an organisation like that. I will rename the article "my narrowest escape!!"
It’s kinda ironic that after interviewing with a mental health startup, you ended up so emotionally disturbed that you might now need some actual mental health support to tackle the thoughts it brought up. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
I had one job, where at the very end of the process there was a multi-hour evaluation by a psychologist / consultant they used. Went over my full life history, school, jobs, etc.
It was all disclosed up front, so no surprises. Not really that bad.
I think the author was reading too much into these questions. I bet these people came up with random questions they thought were deep, especially coming from a mental health lens, but struck a nerve in the author. They essentially weren't prepared for the raw human experience that was shared here.
I think regardless of whatever you face during an interview, true mastery is to let your humanity at the door and pull up a facade. If you cannot do it in that context, you dodged a bullet imho.. you wouldn't be able to recognize yourself a few years down the line working there with them daily.
> true mastery is to let your humanity at the door and pull up a facade
Or say "screw that" and go find work that lets you be a human, not a repressed shell. I'm in my 40s now and have followed that my whole life to great benefit. Barring about two months in a open-plan hell hole in my mid twenties which I still look back on and shudder, mostly out of empathy for people who spend their whole working lives that way.
I know many people like you. Don't project your mentality onto someone else.
People who can "pull up a facade" are a subset of the population
This is hazing, and OP is right to be upset. They were put into a Catch-22 by the interviewer and I see no reason to believe that was accidental.
I see a lot of replies that accuse OP of oversharing, and that's bullshit. In any job interview, the expectation is that you answer questions to the best of your ability. If "I'm not comfortable answering that" is an acceptable answer, that is an exception to the norm and it should be made clear ahead of time.
Cultural fit is the number one predictor for a successful fit, however a big wall here is with certain personality types (especially surrounding IT).
In general we don't open up easily to strangers and hate personal questions. We consider many social questions to be just fluff and will either brush them off or pick something with far too much personal information.
These issues especially surface when being interviewed by a non-IT worker.
Back when I was younger and interviewing candidates for a startup where I was one of the oldest engineers my favorite "fit" question used to be "tell me your favorite 4 letter word".
I never actually based my decision on that one, only the technical questions.
This is an example of where I (probably) contributed to making some people feel uncomfortable and I wouldn't do it now.
> tell me your favorite 4 letter word
Stop
If you answered that, my past self would have appreciated your answer and maybe even stopped. I mostly got things like: "code", "cash", "love" and one time a "fart"
I am glad you stopped asking that question. We all make mistakes and learn from them.
An I correct in assuming the “4 letter word” was intended to make the candidate think of curse words? I’m curious what the intent of this question was if it didn’t feed into your hire decision.
I hope you hired "fart."
I remember having this interview with an HR person several years ago (like in the early 2010s) where she asked me all these vague, difficult to answer questions. None of them were technical, and I can't remember a single one of them now, but they reminded me of the vague questions we get from various IT audits.
<< insert "dodged a bullet" comment here >>
An interview is a date between a company and a new employee. If either one of them acts inappropriately, or gives off strong "bad chemistry", the other party learns it is a red flag.
Sometimes these red flags are ignored because one side is desperate (lonely, horny and attracted, needs a job, needs the role filled soon). That's always a bad thing.
two stories.
fun one first.
I once did a coding interview entirely in bash. and the poor software engineer giving the interview did not have that as a skillset. so he was deeply confused when I spent like 70% of the time building a massive sed awk xargs one liner. then proceeded to answer every question in order with it.
I thought he was so confused by it that's why I never heard back. Turns out it was much stranger. The recruiter died. Took them months to figure out his backlog.
2nd story.
I am the responsible party for some poor persons worst interview. And I still feel awful about it. Like they were panicking cause they really wanted the role, and honestly the interview questions were unnecessarily hard and designed to induce stress ( not my call just company decision. personally I can see some of the logic for it but I question the efficacy ). result is this poor kid was spiraling. So I tried to throw them some confidence builder questions... but they were so far into the spiral they bombed those too. And like... I KNEW they knew the answers from previous parts of the interview. But like, they just lost it mentally.
I was told later they spent like 10 minutes in the bathroom recovering before doing the next stage of the interview.
I fucking hated that interview. I still think about it. Wish I coulda just sat down with em after and just apologized and told em they didn't do anything wrong. They just had a bad day and that's fine. It happens. They can try again. Like... I hate someone took it that badly. I hate I was unable to get em that confidence boost they needed to show off their skill.
Experience sometimes just plain leaves scars for everyone.
> fun one first […] The recruiter died.
That took a turn!
Damn. I'm grateful I've never had that happen in an interview I've run. Then again, I've never had an employer give me a set of questions to ask.
Trauma baiting was a new term for me. Must’ve felt awful. Your story made me think of this old Far Side comic, where the psychotherapist just writes “he’s nuts” in his notebook[1].
[1] https://pin.it/7S4LVwrr6
It is OK to be rejected. Showing vulnerability (in a professional manner) can be a sign of strength and trustworthiness, but one should also be resilient when it isn’t a match and not dwell on it too much. Ego is the enemy.
I interviewed at a global leader in industrial cameras for an EE position. The interview slate had a slew of people from various disciplines but no EEs until the very end. Their last EE on staff was an over tasked H1-B who broke down in tears as I asked probing questions about what the job would entail and learned that the whole engineering team responsible for their legacy product line was axed in favor of reselling commodity cameras repackaged in expensive boxes. Everyone else knew nothing about what I was expected to do other than magically reverse engineer without any documentation.
Their lobby was filled with expensive midcentury furniture and their promotional materials had this weird cult like worship of their founders who were driving everybody into the ground. "Work hard play hard". I happily dodged that bullet.
The real question is... what they expect? What would be the perfect fit for this interview? Someone with irreversible trauma?
Usually I do my best to answer questions in a business context and prepare different STAR scenarios based off past experience.
Right, you should never, ever, make yourself emotionally available to a prospective employer. They might seem friendly but they are not.
s/a prospective/any/g
During university, I had an interview for a quant role. I was asked an option pricing question, and then the interviewer immediately picked up the phone, asked something, then spent the next 2 minutes yelling at the person on the other end. I had a question, so I looked at him during this, and he paused, said "Why are you looking at me, you have 3 minutes left?" and went back to his stream of expletives.
To this day, I still don't know if it was part of the interview or the interviewer's working style. I learned a few new curse words and insults from the exchange, but mostly the signal to tell me I didn't want to work there.
Name and shame company: Canonical
They make us write essays and life stories and reject in 24hrs.
Felt the exact same frustration.
Second this. Canonical is currently winning the race to the bottom for tech interviews (I'm speaking with a couple of decades of experience on both sides of the table). They use lots of AI on their side (of course, none allowed on your side). A strange focus on your school years. Dark patterns in technical questions with no opportunity to get clarity. Ghosting afterwards. Interviews always involve some asymmetry but Canonical exploits that to the maximum.
Don't forget the exceptionally long interview cycles. I've heard some stories of candidates getting strung along for 6+ months to eventually get rejected.
Sad to hear - putting these things on Glassdoor can help more people avoid these situations.
Canonical spends a lot of money and effort to “scrub” negative reviews from glassdoor. At a minimum they reply to, and dismiss, concerns raised there but I recall mentions of ways to outright have some bad reviews deleted. Source: I worked there.
I had a pretty weird interview with this crazy french guy that after a couple of minutes, started acting like a telepreacher and demanding passion or something.
But the most frustrating one was with an attractive smiling girl that praised the founder as a genius, dismissed my experience and refused to talk money. She said the next step was a "group dynamics" with the team. I said no thanks. Cult.
In general, I get the job when I reach the technical guy. Except that time that, after being approved by the technical lead, I had a chat with the dept head, that asked some inane what are your hobbies questions and rejected me, really because of too high salary. Later the same company reached me, when he was replaced.
I was asked what my hobbies are during an interview once and it made me believe they were just looking for a personality hire or a pretty face.
The mirror side of this is when almost all the intern applications/cover letters we used to receive contained a paragraph about the hobbies of the applicant (all domain-irrelevant). I find that weird but I guess it is sort of common nowadays?
I was involved with picking a candidate for an internship in 1999, we had three candidates and they all mentioned basketball on their resumes. I think it's just something to help the resume fill one page. And help provide a direction for a 'validate the resume' interview.
Sometimes, if the hobby shows leadership etc, it might be relevant even if the domain isn't.
I have a one-liner in my resumé that lists "interests." basketball, baseball, photography, music, the outdoors, privacy and digital human rights. With the heading, it takes up half an inch of paper on the second page, which I only provide in a PDF.
If anything in there is a disqualifier, I don't want to work for you anyway. If you need any more info than that, ditto.
This is quite common. Hobbies may suggest to them an attention to detail, working well in a team (sport) or leadership abilities.
Especially in recent graduate positions. I maybe won't make sense if the interviewee was 35 but if they're 21 there's just nothing else to talk about. That said, at least in software, the right answer still includes something about coding or building things.
Umm .. pretty standard & generally lame line of questioning at many companies/countries. Sounds like you were offended or surprised by it?
I had something similar to OP. "What was the worst fight you've ever had in your life?"
I asked "you want me to answer that honestly?"
"Yes"
So I did. It was from when I was seven.
They didn't proceed forward with me. But quite frankly, I wouldn't have proceeded forward with them either.
I'd answer this one honestly. A kid took my Nintendo DS and I tackled him.
This sounds less like an interview and more like they’re gathering data to train their mental health model!
I hope you gave them feedback on this, that's really messed up!
Are you quite sure it was a real business and not just some weirdo pretending to be a business for fun?
I think the post said early stage startups... So maybe both?
I had an interview with a CTO back like 2 years ago, I already passed the 3-4 interviews 2 of which were technical and I am on this cultural fit interview with the CTO. The guy enters the call everything seems normal and he begins with his questions which were absolutely insane. First he asked me how did I improve in my work, since I work in cyber I explained to him that I am following latest trends, and getting security certificates like OffSec and other hands on stuff, even CTFs. He is not satisfied he asked me about specifics and to dive deep, okay.. I've explained to him how OSCP, OSWE and OSEP worked and possibly even shared some of the exam ranges scenarios, again he wasn't satisfied and asked for specifics I am already baffled and I was thinking "Does he want me to share the CTF flags or what". Anyway after back and forth with me saying that I don't understand what he wants me to say, he moves forward with "Now what about outside working hours". I sighed and explained that this is taking at least 90% of my free time as well, but he kept asking that he does not care about work and wants to know what I do outside work. Okay I play table tennis quite often and I train it, HE IS NOT SATISFIED (mind you he asked for specifics as well) and in the end he sighed and just said "so you are not improving outside work". I am on the verge of clicking the end meeting button but I kept going. Next question was, have I done any proactive work during work hours, I explained what I did, what tools I've written for the developers and he again asked for SPECIFICS, I said that at this point I am starting to worry about my NDA, and explained that I won't be sharing what I did specifically. He was frustrated and started explaining me that he does not know my clients or whatever or anything about me so it won't matter, which is absolutely laughable but I refused to share anything. Next thing he said is that I am bombing the interview and he has 0 value from this conversation, and I was like okay sure I didn't know that I should bring value into your company/you without even starting. He was now really frustrated started to use words like "fucking" and so on, explained to me how the interns in the company were having a better answers and how his mom would do a better job at this. I was like "???? lmao". Now telling you this I am not sure why I did not quit the meeting but here we go the next question, which I do not remember exactly but I distinctly remember that he said "that's a perfect answer". And since this is becoming long enough I would spare the rest of questions which were absurd once again. Needless to say that I wasn't chosen nor I would have chose them even if this was somehow a pass.
Man, I would never want to be in your shoes that day. What a pain.
AI makes it trivial to narrow down who this company might have been despite the anonymized details. Mostly a heads up for future posters who want to truly avoid it.
I remember a moment in an early job interview. My resumé was all proper for this entry level junior position and everything was checking out. We turned to smalltalk to round up the interview.
"What sort of music do you like?"
(What sorta ques... you don't just throw this in without a warning. ahh I'm blanking out. What was it that I listened to last night??)
"Uhhh Mike Oldfield is one..."
"Ohh... (pause) ewww. But we won't let this hinder your application heh heh"
"hee..."
I got the position and rose to senior rather quickly. I didn't have any interactions with this guy since after this one interview. Maybe for the best. He didn't mean bad, he was just a bit out of his element 2nd-seat interviewing for devs.
I came here expecting it was a yet another story about Canonical.
I still remember an off-site team building event that I (luckily) skipped the first half of, where our tech lead tried to speed-run some intimacy building by going around and asking what everyone's biggest fear was.
I had just recently become a parent, and if you're a parent reading this, I'm pretty sure that we both have the exact same biggest fear in our lives - and it was absolutely not one I was willing to fucking share, even with those coworkers that I felt close to.
> And I think it’s worth sharing not because I want to shame the company or individuals (I’ve left them anonymous), but rather to suggest some reconsideration for founders and hiring managers in the same boat.
Now I want to know the name. Companies that use psycho-tactics should be known to us.
I hate to victim-blame because it's wrong, uncalled for, and also everyone has these kinds of lapses of reason and trip up. It happens to all of us.
That said, these job interviews aren't therapy sessions; they are roleplaying games where everyone must understand the rules and just pretend, so when they ask you "what's your biggest flaw" the only valid answer is "I'm too much of a perfectionist".
worst interview you had: but can't name the company.
exact reason why software engineering interviews will never improve. candidates due maybe desperation, lack of assertiveness or masochism - keep getting abused but won't take action.
name & shame. you get ghosted - or get a rejection email one day later. maybe start cutting interviews short too - if you don't see why you would wanna work at a place.
I've had that kind of interview. I kept avoiding the questions because it's not their business. He kept asking. I didn't get the job but that's fine.
I've always worked with people I don't mesh with. We fight with each other. We even yell sometimes. But that's ok. We don't need to be a family and in fact I feel major ick at the thought (weird polyamory shit) - they're gross. But they are competent and consistently bring us more customers.
You dodged a bullet my fren.
This is a good life lesson to OP of the freedoms they have in these situations.
An interviewer can choose to ask whatever question they want (within legal boundaries).
You can also choose to answer however you want. The interviewer asked you to mentally drain yourself recounting trauma. You didn’t have to give them that.
“I appreciate your approach in asking about the most challenging day of my life. However, I’ll keep my answers in the scope of the workplace moving forward.”
My worst was with Digital Ocean, a dozen years ago. Total shitshow, top to bottom.
The worst interview of my life was at Meta, and it was bad enough that I have permanently blacklisted them as a place I will /never/ work. I get contacted by Meta recruiters relatively often despite the fact I let them know after the fact that they were horribly unprofessional and I would never work with them after that experience (setting aside any ethical concerns, which I also have).
I've had several other bad interviews in my career though, and almost all of them were small companies / startups. It was also obvious, sometimes in the moment, that it was bad because the person interviewing me lacked the maturity, experience, or professionalism to be conducting interviews of anyone. Many times that person was the founder. I consider those all dodged bullets.
It's always important to remember that interviews are a two-way street, and the way someone conducts an interview can tell you a lot about them and about the organizational context they operate in. Do you want to work there?
had a similar unsolicited psych evaluation interview back in 2017 in twitter. There was a VP (or maybe director), who started with "go back in history and tell me what your boss at position X would say about you", and this kept happening for an hour.
The “what would your previous manager say” doesn’t seem like a psych evaluation
Sounds like a behavioral interview that silicon valley sometimes uses - the questions are designed to ascertain how you deal with difficulty, stress, and certain situations which they absolutely can't legally ask about directly - they are looking for you to discuss challenging times where you succeeded by working harder, doing more than peers, etc. It's not about shaming you, and understanding what they are looking for and why is key - they want people who stick with them through difficult times that they anticipate having.
For interview questions like these, they can only tease about what they are really after - finding employees who "go the extra mile" or "stay late" or "don't give up in the face of adversity". They are looking for you to find evidence of these patterns to corroborate your story. If they drove you to the answer they were after, it wouldn't be a passing score in their interview summary write-up.
Agreed. Reading the rest of these comments are makes me feel crazy / like I’m missing something. It doesn’t sound like the interviewer was making the candidate divulge traumatic information - but rather assessing how they deal with adversity.
Reading through these comments is pretty sad. I didn't know how bad it had gotten. Haven't had to look for few years.
My first interview was the weirdest one, as i was so panicked that i started lying to the interviewer.
That isn't uncommon.
These are essentially sociopath screens where they expect you to memorize some STAR stories and regurgitate them on demand. And I don't mean screen out.
>covering such lovely topics as the hardest day of my life, my biggest life challenges, and other similar “trauma-baiting” questions.
And this was for a mental health startup!? Please name-and-shame them. Awful.
Ive had a few stinkers of interviews.
One when I was 19 was for a 3rd shift stocker at a "family business". Guy straight up asks "Are you married?". Sure, its illegal to ask. Not like a jobless 19 year old could do anything.
Ive had a few jobs claim "pay band was from x to y. And surprise it was x-20000 to y-50000.
One interview (an HN company) did the interviews. Got back round 2, seemed interesting. The "third round" was do like 20 hours of github work to prove me. Told them my going rate was $100/hr. Never heard back, surprise surprise. Cant remember the company.
Applied to Oxide. They want a whole litany of crap filled out. And what do you get? A form letter 2 months later. Should have slop'ed it. I guess this doent really count, since it wasnt EVEN an interview.
Sorry to hear that you viewed it as a "litany of crap", but if it's of any solace, if you had slopped it, the result would not have been immediately different -- but you would be marked in our system in such a way that subsequent applications would also be disqualified.
It sounds like we're not a fit for you either, though, so maybe just as well!
Im guessing you dont get that much feedback about the process. Or, you do and you dont care.
The process stank, wasted my time, and got HR slop form letter as a result months later. A deny is normal. The way it was done was a big FU.
I'm not sure what else you're looking for; we are already explicit about the fact that we (like YC!) don't give detailed feedback. If you would like to DM me, I will look at the reviews of your materials and tell you what I can tell you -- but I think it's pretty clear that you and Oxide aren't really a fit for one another?
I have a two way tie for the worst interviews I've ever had, for very different reasons.
First, in 2023 I interviewed for a startup as a lead architect.
They had me do some virtual whiteboard stuff, and so I was drawing rectangles and cylinders and mentioning things like "database" and "message queues" as generically as I could.
They would interrupt me and say stuff like "Which message queue? Where do you download that?". The interview went on for a long time, with many bizarrely-specific questions for a whiteboard interview, but I figured that it was just their way to make sure that candidates didn't bullshit them by handwaving away important details.
They did make me an offer a few days later, but not for as much as I wanted. That's fine, no hard feelings over that.
But then a week later the CEO emails me asking for technical help on a question. I was on the train when I got it. I don't remember the exact question but it was something to do with RabbitMQ and Redis, and it was pretty easy, so I just typed out a quick answer to my phone and replied without even really thinking about it. Then another half-hour later he responds back to my reply asking for more detail on everything.
After his last reply I sent a response like "I am happy enough to continue this conversation but I'm afraid I will need to start billing the time it takes for me to reply. Give me a call and we can discuss the rate.
He didn't reply.
And then I realized something: this company was using interviews as unpaid consulting. That's why they were asking for bizarrely-specific stuff during the interview, and that's why the CEO was still trying to get free consulting out of me even afterward.
Really pissed me off, and I am very glad I didn't accept their offer. I am generally a person who is happy to help answer technical questions for free [1], but I felt like my trusting nature was kind of weaponized.
---------
Second was last year at a big bank.
I was really excited for this job, so I showed up to the interview in my best (and only) suit, made sure everything looked nice, and had studied for many of the technical questions I thought they were likely to ask the previous night.
Off to a bad start, it was one of the hottest days in NYC of the year, and I sweat a lot by nature, so in combination with the full suit, by the time I got to the building I was already kind of drenched in sweat.
Once I get in, they start giving me some conceptual algorithm questions on the whiteboard. I don't remember the exact question, but I remember they asked the runtime complexity of my solution and I said "Looks like O(n + log m) where n is the length of list A and m is the length of list B". One of the interviewers very confidently corrects me an says "You got your n and m backward".
I look at the board, go through my solution, and, no, I actually hadn't gotten the variables backward.
I have no idea what you're supposed to do in a situation where you're right and the interviewer is wrong [2], so I just do a trace through my solution and explain that, no, my variables were appropriately assigned. He still confidently "corrected" me again.
At this point I really don't know what I'm supposed to do, because I'm not going to just lie and say "oh you're right", but if I'm wrong, then I do want to know why so I don't repeat the mistake in the future. So I ask him "Ok, let's trace through this again because I really don't think my understanding is wrong here".
It was this bizarre gaslighting experience, because he would agree with every premise of why I thought the answer was O(n + log m), and every reasoning step along the way, but then still insisted I got the answer wrong. I do really know my Big O complexity, I have been doing this for a very long time, so eventually I just said something like "I guess we need to agree to disagree" because my time for that interview was almost up.
Then there was another interview immediately afterward. The interviewer started asking me very specific questions about Java Spring MVC (like about which annotations to use and whatnot)
Now, I don't have Java Spring on my resume, I haven't touched Java Spring in more than a decade, and Java Spring was not in the job listing. I didn't even consider studying Spring MVC because the listing didn't even mention that this would be web-based.
So I tell the guy something like "umm, I don't really know Spring. I know how a web request works so I'm happy to answer conceptual questions on the whiteboard, but I'm afraid I would have to learn the specific syntax".
And he responded "Well this is not a junior role. You shouldn't have to learn."
So of course I get the specific Spring questions wrong, and fine, if they wanted a person who knew Spring, that's ok, even if they should have put that in the job posting.
But then he asked me to, on the whiteboard, design a basic web request where there was a global counter [3]. I use an AtomicLong, which to my understanding is what pretty much every human who writes Java uses for counters.
He asked me why I used an AtomicLong, and I said "because it's what everyone uses, and because it doesn't block and because compare and swap for a small surface area like that is pretty cheap".
The guy then, corrected me, and told me to use a mutex. I said "I don't think a mutex is necessary here, if it's just a counter I think an atomic is fine."
He was very insistent, and told me to rewrite it with a mutex, and at this point I am starting to question my own competence, so I yield and just rewrite it with a ReentrantLock, which he again "corrected" me saying that I should use `synchronized`, and at that I push back and say "no, ReentrantLock is fine".
I left the interview feeling like a moron; I was so sure about this stuff before, but maybe I didn't have the understanding I thought I did.
I'm friends with a few graybeard C and C++ programmers on Discord, so when I got home I told them the questions and asked them how they'd solve them, and they solved the problems in the same way I would have.
Then I realized that this interviewer, who was principal level, didn't know what an atomic was, and I think he also had no idea how to use ReentrantLock, and so when I used them he just assumed I was wrong. Moron.
[1] And that's still true; feel free to email me if you want to geek out about software :)
[2] And it seems like the answer I get for that varies between each person. I'm not sure anyone knows.
[3] With, to be clear, no further arithmetic or anything being applied to it, before someone asks.
> Off to a bad start, it was one of the hottest days in NYC of the year, and I sweat a lot by nature, so in combination with the full suit, by the time I got to the building I was already kind of drenched in sweat.
You'd need a Summer-weight suit for this to be at-all comfortable. "High-twist wool" and "unlined" or "half-lined" are your search terms. Silk-wool blends also OK. Other fabric options for warm weather open up in some contexts (linen and linen/wool/silk/cotton blends, warm-weather cotton weaves like seersucker, maybe even rayon though that's a bit niche) but probably not if you're looking to dress for an interview at a bank in New York. Part of why suits are in-practice expensive and inconvenient (and why only-occasional wearers judge them unpleasant to wear—not unreasonably, given their exposure to them) is that you need at-minimum one set for moderate-and-lower temps ("three-season"), and another set for hot days.
I have one unlined high-twist wool navy blazer that's so cool it's actually kind of a problem because offices often have their AC cranked up on hot days. I end up needing an overcoat or second, winter-weight jacket indoors, LOL. Hold the thing up to a light and it looks like a star field seen from outside the Earth's atmosphere, dark with endless dots of light, so air goes right through it.
Dodged a bullet. There are good banks (eg Goldman) and shitty banks (eg Bank Of $Large_North_American_Country) and not a lot in between.
I don’t want to say the bank’s name, but let’s give the pseudonym of “Morgan” to the first, and “Stan” for the second.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The interviewer certainly didn’t mean tell me about your failed romantic relationships
That’s a misread of note
The problem seems to be that you treated a professional job interview like a therapy session and showed yourself to be a person who brings up situationally inappropriate subjects without a filter.
> I’m a little ashamed remembering myself talking about failed relationships, family struggles
It sucks what happened, but, yeah, you need to establish filters for yourself. No matter what they ask you, it's an absolutely terrible idea to bring up your failed relationships in an interview. Something tells me they did not ask for that private information specifically and you just decided it would be a good idea to volunteer it, otherwise the story would have said so.
It does not matter what you think they asked. You are the one in control of the words that come out of your mouth. This was poor judgement all around.