|
Karanth posted:Books are your friend  Cicero posted:Big-O is easy and stuff If it's really that easy, why did it take at least a week for my teach to explain it to us, hmm Mr. smarty pants? No, that's actually painfully simple. I kind of always suspected that's what it really boiled down to.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Jick Magger posted:Oh yeah, like the algorithms book I used for that class... I forget that I have those sometimes Hey, at least you passed the test of not selling relevant textbooks back to the bookstore for their relative value as campfire fuel. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Jick Magger posted:If it's really that easy, why did it take at least a week for my teach to explain it to us, hmm Mr. smarty pants? Also, I don't think the run-time stuff is that rigorous, but they sure try to make it seem that way in class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Also, I don't think the run-time stuff is that rigorous, but they sure try to make it seem that way in class. It's rigorous, assuming you do it rigorously. What parts do you find particularly hand-wavey?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
shodanjr_gr posted:I personally loved the experience. It was very casual. You get interviewed by developers themselves, not some HR crew, at their offices (and over lunch with one of the guys). This is pretty much my experience with the Microsoft interviews as well. I have interviewed 3 times in the last year with MS alone so I can also answer questions regarding their new grad interview process. One interesting thing I got to experience through the process was two different styles of organizing the interview day. The first two times I was in Redmond to interview it was the standard Microsoft style interview. 5 rounds of 1 on 1 with you being moved around to various interviewer's offices. The third time I was down for a college recruitment "event" which was much different. They had all of the candidates picked up from the hotel together and taken for breakfast before the interview day began. After the breakfast we (about 12 people, and a mix of Bachelors, Masters and PhD students) were gathered in a conference room with a pair of recruiters. The people conducting the interviews would then come to the door and pickup a student to be interviewed one by one. Once you were picked up it was the standard interview for about an hour after which you were led back to the conference room. There was a short break where the students could get a drink, make nervous chit chat, etc. Then a different interviewer would come to grab you and the process began again. This went on 4 times, after which the group was taken for lunch and a tour of the Microsoft campus. After the lunch the results of the interviews were revealed. This was a particularly exciting experience. The candidates were once again gathered in a conference room (different than the first one). One by one the recruiters would come and select someone to tell them their results. This was a ruse. Anyone selected was told they didn't get the job and put on a bus to be sent back to the hotel. As this went on you were left in a room with people getting more and more nervous as the others kept disappearing. Finally once they had removed everyone who wasn't getting an offer they came back and told the remaining people that they had gotten a position. It was a very surreal experience, satisfying though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
Just going to say: Networking, networking, networking. Most of the jobs i've got have been through knowing someone at the company, and it has helped opened a lot of doors. Go to local tech meetings and don't be a complete sperg. Then again i'm a dropout 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
Sefar posted:MS Interview Stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
tef posted:Just going to say: Networking, networking, networking. This cannot be over-stated. A retard with a thousand friends is going to find a better job faster than an above average guy with 10.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
shrughes posted:It's rigorous, assuming you do it rigorously. What parts do you find particularly hand-wavey? The continuous domain stuff is certainly rigorous wrt to limits approaching x = a or x = infinity, but applying big-O notation to discrete domains seems almost naively simple and devoid of rigor (it could still be rigorous; I don't have a math major's eyes to really see). I should look at how it was done in CLRS instead of the wiki page, though. From an interview or empirical perspective, the big-O run-time will often also be the big-Theta run-time, which is the natural (though not always the safest) way to think about performance. Like with the example above, that algorithm might be technically O(n^3), but it's the Theta(n^2) behavior that jumps out at me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
You *could* define the order classes in terms of limits — something like this:pre:O(f) := { g : N -> N | lim n->inf |g(n)/f(n)| exists and is finite }pre:O(f) := { g : N -> N | exists a : N, s : N . forall n : N . a <= n implies g(n) <= s * f(n) }People talk about big-O because, in the context of an un-analyzed problem or algorithm, analysis usually proceeds by establishing iteratively better limits on performance, rather jumping immediately to the correct order.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Why did you interview in person 3 separate times? This is all based on the feedback from the recruiters so they may have been lying to me about all of this. I have no reason to doubt them though as everything seemed to check out with what they were saying. First time down I didn't do great, but based on the feedback from the interviewers the recruiters thought it would be worthwhile having me interview a second time. The second time things went great, but I was told that the team I interviewed with didn't have headcount to hire anyone else. This seemed a bit odd, but what could I do. The recruiters said that they would bring me out again the next chance they had. In the end everything seemed to work out as I was brought down a third time and managed to get an offer. This being that odd communal interview thing I described before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
The skill of the interviewer seems to (unfortunately) have more effect on what person gets the job than anything. Here are a few examples from my experience. Terrible Recruiter. Asked best/worst trait, where do you see yourself in 5 years, crap like that. Not great Internship from recruiter. Basically a vocabulary test (data structures, define abstraction, etc) Microsoft consulting position. Maybe I didn't like it because I wasn't prepared. Questions like what changed from .net 3.5 to 4.0, the big picture for my last project (huge workflow tool; I didn't have an answer prepared, so I stumbled through it), and no coding problem. Good Other microsoft consulting position. A simple code problem with a lot of questions about edge cases, what to return, and other discussion. Best Consultant position (current job). Basically a conversation about coursework, experiences on resume, etc. Was good because the interviewer was experienced, so none of the questions were canned and pointless. Part 2 was a programming interview with a project euler problem, which was actually a lot of fun. It seems that if you're generally smart, its far superior to network to get an interview with somebody competent. Otherwise you'll have to prepare for canned questions. Also, for the problems, be sure to bring paper and actually write things down. Drawing a tree or other data structure helps a lot and looks good to the interviewer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:On the subject of PhD's, I have two guys with Doctorates reporting to me. I have noticed that they place a great deal of weight in being "smart". I think it is a product of the environment of academia, where obviously being smart is really important. This can have an impact on their ability to work with others. I really don't want to generalise but they can have a tendency to think that they are really smart and that they are right. And they usually are right, but in this environment being right isn't as important as getting things done. It comes back to people having differing opinions, and usually both have their merits. You need to be able to ascertain what the other parties are after, and work out a way forward that meets their objectives. At the end of the day I am hiring people cause I need stuff done. If you're going to scoff at other people or teams it will just make it harder. This is reasonable advice but it almost sounds like you are hiring people who can put up with all the other departments being full of jerks and idiots. If they are right, shouldn't you be focusing on the right things? How would placing an emphasis on getting things done help if you're doing the wrong things? "You need to be able to ascertain what the other parties are after, and work out a way forward that meets their objectives." Why don't they need to work on their ability to communicate their needs or understand that you usually cannot meet all objectives? You're asking for people who have technical skill and can work with people and then you say technical skill is a commodity. The positions you're describing don't sound like a commodity to me, and yet you use language implying that workers are basically automatons. unixbeard posted:So to sum up: So to sum up: you're a glorified factory worker here for one task, please be passionate about the limited area we have slotted you into until we outsource the technical side because it's a commodity
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 21:05
|
|
|
A quick gank from the dying 'how do i pay people' thread, this youtube is relevant re: employee motivation and performance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:So to sum up: you're a glorified factory worker here for one task, please be passionate about the limited area we have slotted you into until we outsource the technical side because it's a commodity
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:This is reasonable advice but it almost sounds like you are hiring people who can put up with all the other departments being full of jerks and idiots. The real world is full of jerks and idiots. quote:If they are right, shouldn't you be focusing on the right things? How would placing an emphasis on getting things done help if you're doing the wrong things? 'worse is better' or 'perfect is the enemy of the good' quote:Why don't they need to work on their ability to communicate their needs or understand that you usually cannot meet all objectives? Because they're hiring you. Also, if you think about it a little, if it has been asked of you, it would have been asked of others, some of whom may work at the company. quote:So to sum up: you're a glorified factory worker here for one task, please be passionate about the limited area we have slotted you into until we outsource the technical side because it's a commodity I AM A SNOWFLAKE 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:This is reasonable advice but it almost sounds like you are hiring people who can put up with all the other departments being full of jerks and idiots. If they are right, shouldn't you be focusing on the right things? How would placing an emphasis on getting things done help if you're doing the wrong things? I work at a very large organisation (60k+ employees) which means often what is objectively the right thing to do isn't feasible because it would take years and years of re-engineering systems and processes as well as internal politics. There is bureaucracy, and many teams are under pressure to deliver in tight time frames. If I go to them and spout off some ideal case and refuse to acknowledge their constraints they will write me off as a pie in the sky idiot and do everything they can to undermine me. They will see me as a roadblock to be circumvented which is not a good situation if I am meant to be working with them. You have to be robust about these situations and be able to work with what you've got. quote:"You need to be able to ascertain what the other parties are after, and work out a way forward that meets their objectives." Why don't they need to work on their ability to communicate their needs or understand that you usually cannot meet all objectives? Well usually they can. It is a two way street and sometimes the considerations of team A have to be given more weight than the considerations of team B. If you as an individual have difficulty with this you're not going to fit with the organisation. quote:You're asking for people who have technical skill and can work with people and then you say technical skill is a commodity. The positions you're describing don't sound like a commodity to me, and yet you use language implying that workers are basically automatons. The thing is technical skill isn't enough by itself. I can pick up the phone and get 5 cv's of good experienced C# developers, so given that, how can one differentiate themselves? If you're a great developer but completely erractic in your work behaviour and difficult to communicate with we're not going to hire you. quote:So to sum up: you're a glorified factory worker here for one task, please be passionate about the limited area we have slotted you into until we outsource the technical side because it's a commodity Well this is why corporate jobs are soul destroying. They put you in a little box with very clearly defined responsibilites beacuse that is the only way you can get 60,000 people to actually do anything. If you stray outside your box you are stepping on the toes of other teams who will likely get upset at you as they have their own plans and objectives. It is possible but you need to be good at communicating. If we could outsource the role we wouldn't be hiring, and the decision to outsource is usually taken pretty high up in the org chart. All i'm saying is if you're a good developer with good qualifications that is great and valuable, but if you want to have a the best chances there are other skills that are worth developing as well. The flip side of it too is that if you are a good developer and are good at working in such an environment you are very desireable as a candidate. It's a cliche but good people are always hard to find.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 13:06
|
|
|
tef posted:The real world is full of jerks and idiots. Exactly, so why the emphasis on keeping them out of the IT department. If IT workers can handle jerks and idiots, so can everyone else. tef posted:'worse is better' or 'perfect is the enemy of the good' Look I know those aphorisms well, but it sounded like doing something in the wrong direction (let's put effort into a shrinking market!) was looked upon more favorably than taking the time to see if maybe you shouldn't head in that direction at all. Either way the situation is too abstract to argue over it much. tef posted:Because they're hiring you. Also, if you think about it a little, if it has been asked of you, it would have been asked of others, some of whom may work at the company. That's funny, because every single organization I have ever heard of is full of people who can't describe what they want and refuse to learn anything about other domains. I was more wondering why does IT have to go out of it's way for everyone else when not a single department ever returns the favor? The advice isn't bad, I just don't understand why IT is so put upon at the same time most companies are plotting their end, and why this is considered an unremarkable situation. tef posted:I AM A SNOWFLAKE Corporate wants to have it both ways. They want you to be a predictable button presser, but they also want you to be creative and passionate. I can deal with not being special. But I'm not going to defend or cleave to contradictory expectations and I don't know why you would rather attack me than corporations on this point. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:The thing is technical skill isn't enough by itself. I can pick up the phone and get 5 cv's of good experienced C# developers, so given that, how can one differentiate themselves? If you're a great developer but completely erractic in your work behaviour and difficult to communicate with we're not going to hire you. The thing is developing those soft skills isn't enough. You can get hired and then tomorrow an executive decides he wants better quarterly earnings and you're out on your rear end, and then who gives a poo poo how good your work behavior and communications skills are? You seem happy enough there, what's the upside to being asked to do things and then working through a laundry list of constraints, some of which are artificial because of the short boss? Sounds like an ulcer to me. I guess my point is you are starting to sound like a boss and not a worker - and part of being a boss nowadays is finding ways to undifferentiate workers. Who cares about your soft skills when the eventual goal is make you replaceable? It's probably because this is a thread about getting a job and interviewing, but the onus here is placed completely on tech workers to improve their skills to work around others' failings. I don't see anyone (not just in this thread) saying companies should eliminate waste and inefficiency, organize a company better, or cut executive pay. The narrative is all "how to make yourself attractive to companies" and no "how do we change society to make businesses work better and more fairly". "Build your brand!" will only work for so long when there are no jobs because everyone caved to corporate culture. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
You don't put food on the table or a roof over your head by telling the CEO he's overpaid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:You don't put food on the table or a roof over your head by telling the CEO he's overpaid. True, though in buying in like a sniveling coward you are also hastening your eventual inability to put food on the table when the CEO gets rid of your job in the name of quarterly earnings. Ok, but where does it end? "You don't put food on your table by complaining that the CEO hit and run someone in your family." But whatever, I'm not going to argue labor issues with technical people. Back to shiny distractions, ignore the sinking ship. Enderzero fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:I guess my point is you are starting to sound like a boss and not a worker - and part of being a boss nowadays is finding ways to undifferentiate workers. Who cares about your soft skills when the eventual goal is make you replaceable? It's probably because this is a thread about getting a job and interviewing, but the onus here is placed completely on tech workers to improve their skills to work around others' failings. I don't see anyone (not just in this thread) saying companies should eliminate waste and inefficiency, organize a company better, or cut executive pay. The narrative is all "how to make yourself attractive to companies" and no "how do we change society to make businesses work better and more fairly". "Build your brand!" will only work for so long when there are no jobs because everyone caved to corporate culture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:People do say these things (especially the one about executive pay), but in D&D, not here. If you'd actually stop and think about it, the reason is obvious: each individual can control and improve their own skillset, and part of that could be reading and discussing on the internet about how to improve. On the other hand, discussing how to make organizations as a whole more efficient or suggesting the cutting of executive pay is, unless you're a bigshot yourself, completely ineffectual. Yeah, thanks, I did think about it, that's why I wrote this: "It's probably because this is a thread about getting a job and interviewing" If you'd actually stop and read, it would have been obvious. You are correct, though, the biggest part of changing those situations can mostly be done by bigshots, but not even discussing it in the general society is one way to ensure nothing will change. If the news does a story about job retraining, have some balance mentioning that jobs wouldn't need to be cut in the first if companies were organized better; Build support for limiting executive pay instead of allowing republican focus group language to convince everyone that if we do that, then you won't ever get rich! (you won't get rich anyway) Stuff like that. Allowing only one narrative means we will move in that direction by default.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Yeah, thanks, I did think about it, that's why I wrote this: quote:If you'd actually stop and read, it would have been obvious. quote:You are correct, though, the biggest part of changing those situations can mostly be done by bigshots, but not even discussing it in the general society is one way to ensure nothing will change. If the news does a story about job retraining, have some balance mentioning that jobs wouldn't need to be cut in the first if companies were organized better; Build support for limiting executive pay instead of allowing republican focus group language to convince everyone that if we do that, then you won't ever get rich! (you won't get rich anyway) Stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:The thing is developing those soft skills isn't enough. You can get hired and then tomorrow an executive decides he wants better quarterly earnings and you're out on your rear end, and then who gives a poo poo how good your work behavior and communications skills are? Sure that can happen but it is relatively rare. IT is not unique in this and is better than other industries. We have also basically just gone through the 2nd great depression so don't let recent experience color your view too much. quote:You seem happy enough there, what's the upside to being asked to do things and then working through a laundry list of constraints, some of which are artificial because of the short boss? Sounds like an ulcer to me. There are plusses and minuses to any organisation. I am in a fairly niche area and the only places with demand for it are large corporates. The good parts are its a well funded organisation with some really large scale and cool stuff which is interesting to work on and be a part of. My direct colleagues are good to work with, and I mostly like & respect my management. The pay isn't bad either. The bad parts are the bureaucracy which means it takes a long time and way more effort than it should to get things done. The constraints are just things to be worked with. Every company has them, and i would rather have to deal with too many servers in a convoluted global network that evolved over decades than the constraint of the company not having enough money to buy a webserver cause I've been there and done that. quote:I guess my point is you are starting to sound like a boss and not a worker - and part of being a boss nowadays is finding ways to undifferentiate workers. Who cares about your soft skills when the eventual goal is make you replaceable? Well I am a boss but I am also a worker. I have a multimillion dollar budget and people who report to me. I also have a boss who expects me to get stuff done. I am just trying to give some perspective from a hiring point of view and my experience just does not match with yours. Companies want good people and they want them to stick around. They do not hire people just to get rid of them. They need good people who can come in and do a job, much like every single other occupation everywhere in the world. My point is that if you are competent and not a total sperger you can have a very good career in IT. I am not really here to talk about the ills of society or corporate culture, nor do I think talking about these things on the internet will have any impact. unixbeard fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
So I've come to the realization that I'm quite possibly completely inept at looking for jobs. I'm having a hard time finding job listings for entry-level or low-experience positions. St. Louis is, according to everyone I've talked to, one of the crappiest places to be working right now. Some people have suggested I look at recruiting companies (like Aerotek or Apex Systems, Inc), but I'm terribly afraid of ending up at some poo poo job (I AM A SNOWFLAKE). Does anyone have experience with going through companies like that (and how terrible is it really)? Also, where should I be looking if I want to find more than listings for recruiting companies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
There's a large managed services provider in St. Louis (or nearby, rather) that I know is hiring plenty for IT folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
I have an interview next week for a development and QA job. They sent me the 'scenario' for the interview today. It basically reads like so: 'foobar' is a new web site. We've got a god start on it, but we want to make it better. So we'd like you go through it and tell us what needs improving Planned features: Comments - we'd like readers to be able to post, even if they aren't a member. But they should have to enter their email address. If they are logged in, then they can just post right away. Tags - similar to the previous item Users - whada balahdw et Pictures - dolor ipsum blah blah Before we can add these features, we need to test foobar in today's most common web browsers. We'd like you to go through the site and document any issues you may find, in our format: screenshot steps to reproduce Next, we'll talk about the issues you found, and how you found them. And how you think they might be resolved. As a final step, we'd like to hear your thoughts on our features, how we might implement them, and any ideas you have for any others. If we like what we see, we will give you a chance to do some programming and fix what you've found, and/or add some features (this would be a homework-type project) Sounds kind of fun. Anyway, I wrote back to the guy asking what language(s)/platform the test is built on, because poo poo, it could be 10 different things, how am I supposed to know them all? I realize I can brush up on stuff and they probably aren't look for perfect answers, and they just want to see how you think/work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:True, though in buying in like a sniveling coward you are also hastening your eventual inability to put food on the table when the CEO gets rid of your job in the name of quarterly earnings. Ok, but where does it end? "You don't put food on your table by complaining that the CEO hit and run someone in your family." If you can afford to pass a job over, you have the option of seeking out organizations which you feel will be more likely to treat you how you want to be treated. Hell, I've turned down jobs for that very reason. The fact of the matter is the only leverage you have over them is denying them the privilege of your efforts. I think this is a very relevant point for an interview thread, in that it's important to remember that so long as your skills are in demand and you aren't going to starve anytime soon, the interview should be as much about gauging whether or not the company is the right fit for you as it is convincing the company you're the right fit for it. unixbeard posted:We have also basically just gone through the 2nd great depression so don't let recent experience color your view too much. you seem to have mixed up your tenses
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Enderzero posted:Exactly, so why the emphasis on keeping them out of the IT department. If IT workers can handle jerks and idiots, so can everyone else. not sure where this comment came from beyond ignorance. there was no emphasis. quote:Either way the situation is too abstract to argue over it much. nah it is called 'dealing with it', life is imperfect, stop sperging so much. quote:That's funny, because every single organization I have ever heard of is full of people who can't describe what they want and refuse to learn anything about other domains. given how much you've jumped the gun here I am wondering how much of your experience is observational bias and how much you just bring upon yourself. quote:Corporate wants to have it both ways. They want you to be a predictable button presser, but they also want you to be creative and passionate. I can deal with not being special. But I'm not going to defend or cleave to contradictory expectations and I don't know why you would rather attack me than corporations on this point. actually, I found your attack on unixbeard mostly lacking substance/knowledge. to finish: 'real artists ship' tef fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:the interview should be as much about gauging whether or not the company is the right fit for you as it is convincing the company you're the right fit for it. this is good advice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
tef posted:this is good advice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 06:03
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:
Is it a real website out in the wild, that they want you to test from home, or will they bring you in and give you a give machine set up to work with the site? I don't think language/framework is that important for the first level of testing, as they're probably looking for experience with diagnosis techniques (like using Firebug) and familiarity with the different browser quirks (may IE6 disappear from this earth). e: also, how much are you expecting to do development through this job? The development opportunity is frequently waved as a bait to people who are looking to transition from QA to development. kimbo305 fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
this might be an extreme longshot. But does anyone here have any experience with the background expected for GIS development positions? I am majoring in Comp Sci, with a Minor in Geomatics, and have worked for the last ~2 years doing GIS development (mostly ArcObjects / GDAL focusing heavily on the Raster Side) for the government through coop. However GIS Programming is an extremely wide field. I know ArcGIS is somewhat the defacto standard. Can anyone provide some insight into GIS Development?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Spime Wrangler posted:you seem to have mixed up your tenses oh, really? I went to school when they were experimenting with not teaching grammar so I have no idea. Cicero posted:What sort of questions do you feel are good for figuring this out? I mean if you ask them, "How do you like working here?", the response basically always amounts to, "Oh it's awesome in seven different ways". How do you get a real feel for what the company is like? You can always ask "how do you see your role as a manager", and the answer should be something along the lines of making sure people know what needs to be done and have what they need to do it and then getting out of their way. You should also try and find out "the plan", where the company or the team is trying to get to and see if it is something you actually want to work on. I usually also look at how the interviewing goes, like if it takes a long time for them to get back to me, they seem very disorganized or I get the feeling they think they are doing me a favor by giving me a job I will bail. One company had this incredibly drawn out interview process, it would take them ages to get back to me with interview results and ages to arrange the next interview, then I went on site for a series of interviews and some of the interviewers didn't show up and the local HR contact had info that differed from the main HR contact I was dealing with, it was a bit wtf. If they are going to gently caress around like that or can't even get some basics right it doesn't really reflect well on the organisation. Also ask how the opening came about if they say "poo poo is taking off and we need more people to meet demand" its probably OK but if they say "lol we've had 10 people quit in the last 2 weeks" there is probably a reason why so many people left.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
For comparison: I applied to my current job on the 11th of October. They got back to me the next day with a programming exercise (write a single threaded wget in python). I got back to them on the 17th with my example, and they arranged a technical interview over skype. We chatted on the 21st, it went well. They got back to me in a few hours and I had a second interview with the founders of the company (on the customer side). They chased up my references, and I had an offer by the 27th, and had a final interview on the 19th of november to confirm everything. Starting in December. I felt this went pretty fast-and could have possibly gone faster if I wanted an earlier start date. Overall I was impressed at the quick responses and fast turnaround. (Additionally, I was signed off from my current job with burnout when the interviews happened, they knew about it and could sympathise with me. I'm on a six month probationary period as a result, but that's cool.) It was one of the smoothest interview processes i've ever had, and unsurprisingly, this has been the most fun place i've worked at *by far and wide*. Moral: If they waste your time at the interview you can be sure they will continue to do so more when they're paying you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 09:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:What sort of questions do you feel are good for figuring this out? I mean if you ask them, "How do you like working here?", the response basically always amounts to, "Oh it's awesome in seven different ways". How do you get a real feel for what the company is like? Same way they get a feel for you. Ask questions and hope for the best. It sounds vapid/trite but I've had some success by looking at what tools and programs they use. (My list of things I will never touch again - exchange; eclipse) If I were mean, I'd ask them how many deadlines they hit recently, the state of the codebase, but I imagine you won't get very honest answers, or answers they think are true. If I were exceptionally mean i'd ask why the last guy left. You might have more success with: How many people you'll be reporting too. How features get developed or planned. Average length of a development/release cycle. Longest day they've worked there? Most annoying bug they've had to fix in the codebase? Really, I just see if I can get along with the people i'm interviewing with -- I aim for small companies, so often you meet every employee, if only for a moment, during the interview process. If I put some effort into it I could write one of those 'what we say and what we mean things' (tongue firmly in cheek) We're customer focused -> We make no long term plans at all We're agile -> We're cowboys We're a tdd shop -> We write boring software that is easy to test We have a roadmap -> We have three priorities - needs doing yesterday, done right now, and on the roadmap. Guess which one we'll never get to. We're results driven -> Look like you're working and do what I say and you'll go far We like to get developer buy in -> We value your opinions. We value ours more. We quality driven -> We'd like the most quality you can get by the ship date. We're in a growing market -> We have no traction Rockstars wanted -> Groupies for existing petulant developers sought. (I am a bitter developer)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 09:45
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Is it a real website out in the wild, that they want you to test from home, or will they bring you in and give you a give machine set up to work with the site? kimbo305 posted:e: also, how much are you expecting to do development through this job? The development opportunity is frequently waved as a bait to people who are looking to transition from QA to development. I'm going on-site and they're going to have a computer setup. I'd like to be more development-oriented but I'll take QA to get out of this computer janitor job I'm in now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 13:57
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:oh, really? I went to school when they were experimenting with not teaching grammar so I have no idea. lol. I was just referring to the fact that the economy is still hosed hosed hosed regardless of whether the DJIA or GDP numbers are increasing, so it's more like 'we're still in the 2nd great depression'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
oh. well thats even more embarrassing that i missed it  It seems like things are slowly getting better in the US, unemployment is turning down and if that can be sustained it would be a very good sign. There is still that deficit though, but i guess that will be our children's problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:45
|
|