Member-only story
3 Reasons Why Coding Interviews Are Not as Flawed as Some Claim
Get your skills right
Coding interviews. Yeah, I said it! You know, those algorithm-style interviews, the kind big tech companies like Google or Facebook like to give. Yes. I decided to touch on this today and share my views regarding the subject. Do they serve a real purpose? Do they meaningfully test candidates? Why do they exist? Are they mere brain teasers?
I want to make it very clear that regardless of what your stance is on this subject or what I write in this article, these interviews exist, and they are not going anywhere anytime soon. With that said, you have to do well in them if you want to get into those types of companies.
At this point, you might have realized that I do not think they are stupid. I believe these interviews are pretty great. I will give three reasons which justify — and maybe try to show — a different perspective for those who hate them. Now that we got that out of the way, let us talk about the three arguments for why coding interviews are not a waste of time.
1. Skills Assessment Across Multiple Dimensions
It turns out that coding interviews are pretty good tools to test or assess if a candidate is well-rounded. Let us look at coding skills. It is easy to see if a candidate can write clean, readable code in one of these algorithms-style interviews or not. Are they naming their variables descriptively where it makes sense to do so? Are they abstracting out repeated logic? Are they avoiding bad anti-patterns in their code? Simply put, there is no reason for a qualified candidate not to do those things in a coding interview.
How about communication skills? In an interview, you can easily see if a candidate can walk you through their thought process and defend their decision-making. You will see if the candidate can explain what their code does. That aside, what about their problem-solving ability?
How does a candidate tackle a complex, perhaps ambiguous problem that they have likely never seen before? Are they able to go through it soundly? Do they ask clarifying questions? Do they consider multiple approaches? Do they go through some of the trade-offs these different approaches might have…
