Is it Time to Rethink How We Interview Programmers?
Hey everyone, John here! Today, we’re diving into a really interesting topic that’s a big deal in the tech world: the job interview for software developers. Finding the right person to write computer code for your team is incredibly tough. How can you be sure someone really knows their stuff from just a few conversations? It’s a huge challenge for companies.
Making a bad hire can cost a lot of time and money, so companies have come up with different ways to test a candidate’s skills. One of the most common methods is the “coding interview.” But are these interviews actually a good way to find the best people? Let’s break it down together.
The Classic “Puzzle on a Whiteboard” Interview
For a long time, the standard way to interview a programmer was to give them a puzzle and a whiteboard. An interviewer would say something like, “Okay, write a program that solves this specific problem,” and the candidate would have to write out the code by hand, right there on the spot. It’s a high-pressure situation!
Imagine being a chef and being asked to invent a brand-new, complex recipe on the spot, in front of a panel of judges, without any of your usual kitchen tools. That’s a bit like what these interviews can feel like. The big tech companies made this style famous, and it led to a whole industry of websites helping people practice these specific types of puzzles.
Lila: “John, the article mentions things like ‘reverse a linked list’ or ‘do a binary search.’ That sounds really technical and confusing! What does that even mean?”
John: “Great question, Lila! Don’t worry about the technical details. Think of them as classic brain teasers specifically for programmers. A ‘linked list’ is just one way to organize data in a computer, and ‘reversing’ it is a common test of skill. A ‘binary search’ is a super-fast way to find an item in a sorted list. The important thing to know is that they are standard, textbook problems used to see how someone thinks. The problem is, they can often feel like ‘gotcha’ questions designed to trip you up.”
The author of the article, who has conducted many of these interviews, found that this method has some serious flaws:
- It’s not realistic. Programmers don’t write code on whiteboards in their daily jobs. They use specialized computer programs called IDEs (Integrated Development Environments) that help them write and check their work.
- It tests for the wrong skill. Being good at solving a puzzle under intense pressure isn’t necessarily the same as being a good programmer. The author points out that a much better quality for a developer is the ability to “deliver an excellent solution after methodically tackling the problem.” Thoughtfulness is often better than speed.
- It can filter out great candidates. Some brilliant programmers simply don’t perform well under that kind of stress. The author admits he probably passed on some good people who just got nervous during a whiteboard test.
A New Idea: The “Take-Home” Project
Because of the problems with live coding tests, a different approach has become more popular: the take-home project. Instead of a live puzzle, the company gives the candidate a small but more realistic project to work on at home over a few days.
For example, they might be asked to build a simple program that acts like a traffic light or one that creates funny pictures (a “meme generator”). The candidate then has about a week to build it, using all their normal tools, and then they come back to present their work and explain how they built it.
The author is a big fan of this method. Why? Because it’s much closer to what a programmer’s actual job is like! In the real world, you get a problem, you have time to think about it, do some research, try a few things, and then build the best solution you can. This type of test measures a developer’s true, practical abilities much more accurately.
But Wait… Can’t They Just Use AI to Do the Work?
This is the big question a lot of people have about take-home tests. What’s to stop a candidate from just asking Google for the answer or, even more powerful today, getting an AI like ChatGPT to write the code for them?
The author has a surprising and very modern answer to this: That’s perfectly fine. In fact, he’d be more worried about a programmer who didn’t use these tools!
Think about it this way: you wouldn’t want to hire a carpenter who insists on using a handsaw when a power saw is available. AI and search engines are just powerful tools in a modern programmer’s tool belt. Using them to work faster and smarter is a good thing.
Lila: “Hold on, that’s really interesting! So, the company doesn’t care if the person actually wrote every single line of code themselves?”
John: “Exactly, Lila. The author’s point is that the real test isn’t about where the code came from. The test is whether the candidate can take ownership of that code. After they submit the project, they have to explain it. They need to be able to talk about why it was built a certain way and answer questions about it. They also need to show that the code is well-written and tested. The article mentions ‘unit tests,’ which are like little mini-programs a developer writes to prove that each piece of their main program works correctly. Someone who just copied code without understanding it wouldn’t be able to explain it or write good tests for it. That’s the real skill.”
So, What’s the Real Point of the Interview?
Ultimately, the article argues that the goal of a coding interview should be simple: to answer the question, “Can this candidate do the job we need them to do?”
If a person can deliver clean, working code that solves the problem, and they can clearly communicate their thought process, it doesn’t really matter how they got there. That’s the kind of person you want on your team—someone who is resourceful, understands the big picture, and can get the job done right.
My Thoughts (John): I have to say, I completely agree with the author’s perspective. Forcing people into high-stress, artificial situations rarely shows you what they’re truly capable of. Focusing on practical, real-world projects that allow people to use all the tools at their disposal seems like a much smarter and fairer way to build a great team.
Lila’s Thoughts: As someone new to all this, this is a huge relief to hear! The idea of a live puzzle on a whiteboard is terrifying. A take-home project sounds much more approachable. It’s really cool to learn that using modern tools like AI to help is seen as a strength, not a weakness!
This article is based on the following original source, summarized from the author’s perspective:
Are coding interviews necessary?