The story of one interview, or as in the company X of the candidate "hung"
Characters:
X - a large well-known company in which an analyst vacancy is open (conditionally)
A - an employee of company X, who conducted interviews
B - HR representative of company X
C - Candidate for a job analyst.
Brief background
Just want to say, I probably would not write here and discuss my interview, if I hadn’t accidentally discovered that A (employee X), who conducted the interview with me, for some reason decided on my Facebook account in the evening the day when the interview took place, lay out a couple of questions that were offered to me on this interview. And also, it seemed to me, to describe it in a somewhat negative connotation, incl. using the terms "hung" (as applied to the applicant), "go into a stupor", "take pity", etc.
It is also very unusual for me, it can be said that I meet for the first time such that the details of my interview, albeit in an impersonal form, are made publicly available, and this is not done first by the candidate (me), but just a company representative.
')
His message was quoted by other Facebook users. A discussion took place in one of the branches, and I also entered into it, promising one of these days to tell in detail about the view of this interview on my part (that is, on the part of the candidate).
The next morning, A (the one who interviewed me) deleted his original message, and with it all the discussions of other participants were erased. I didn’t know what exactly prompted him to do this, perhaps A understood that his message in itself causes reputational damage to company X in the eyes of applicants, but I also admit that it is connected with the fact that I wanted to give my comments.
However, since I promised to answer this topic, I still do it, despite the fact that the topic itself was erased.
Some restrictions
I will not disclose here the true names / names of X, A and B, as well as comment, confirm or deny any guesses, questions and statements relating to them. Also, I will not talk in more detail about the vacancy itself, about the content of the rest of the interview and any other details, since they do not relate to the essence of the question. I note only that, despite the fact that I have a mathematical education that I received more than 10 years ago, in the description of a vacancy it was not said that deep, extensive or some specific knowledge of mathematics is required, with the exception of experience application of methods of mathematical statistics in the list of requirements.
Message A (company employee) in my Facebook account after interviewing me
I note that this quote is almost verbatim, if necessary, those who saw it can confirm it.
In his response to one of the comments on this post, And also writes the following (exact quote):
A look at the interview with the candidate
So, consider the first question I was asked: how to calculate the integral from 0 to Pi of the function sin (x).
In my quick answer, that you can take a primitive, and then use the Newton-Leibniz formula, I was told that a new condition is added: cosine cannot be used in calculations.
I must say that I like such questions, I like to solve non-standard and entertaining math problems. Therefore, the question itself seemed to me immediately interesting, and I began to think about it.
But then one important note should be made. I was forbidden to use paper with a pen (naturally, it wasn’t even about the Internet). And no guiding questions or clues (I clearly asked if there would be any clues).
A (the one who interviewed me) wrote on Facebook that he “hung me up” for 10 minutes.
First, I do not like this term “hung up” by itself, since any process of deliberation over a task (especially not trivial) can also be formally described as “hung up”. People who solve problems in the standings or at the Olympiad in silence - they are also in the "hanging" state? So what?
Secondly, this phrase gives the impression that I just sat there, was silent, did not even suggest any approaches to the solution, any assessments.
But it is not.
On the contrary, knowing that in company X from the candidates they want to hear not only the decision itself, but also its reasoning, even if they do not lead to the right decision, I tried to say what ideas came to my mind to somehow demonstrate the course of my thoughts .
In order:
I immediately said that, since the sine function is odd, then, for example, the integral from -Pi / 2 to Pi / 2 will be 0. To which A expressed doubt, that sine is an odd function, and also takes zero zero value. But after I demonstrated my confidence in this, he nodded in agreement. This reaction of A puzzled me a bit, although I fully admit that in this case it is just a test of the candidate's confidence, and nothing more.
At the same time, A asked me if this could somehow be used to answer the original question. I did not understand exactly how to use it at once, and said so (I repeat, you cannot use a piece of paper with a pen).
Then I suggested (as an idea) expanding sin (x) in a row (xx ^ 3/3! + ...) and calculate the integral of a polynomial. Later, after the interview, I realized that this decision was a dead end, because after integrating this polynomial, decomposition for minus cosine will be obtained; otherwise, it did not occur to me how to calculate the sum of a series otherwise. Another thing is that this method will allow you to quickly calculate the approximate value, but in your mind it will obviously not work.
OK, we go further.
For lack of any clues, I suggested estimating the integral above and below. Bottom - “house”, the left side of the “roof” of which is formed by the function y = x * 2 / Pi. It was completely inconvenient to do without an explanation in the figure, so I dared to draw this house to make it clearer what I was talking about. A again had some doubt in my words, and I said that evaluation is possible, since the function sin (x) is convex upwards from 0 to Pi. Therefore, from the bottom, the simplest estimate from below will be equal to the area of ​​these two triangles under the sine graph, namely, Pi / 2. The simplest upper estimate is determined by the rectangle formed from the top of the straight line y = 1. Thus, as a top estimate, I suggested Pi.
Next, I clarified with him what it means "you cannot use the cosine." I asked for a strict logical definition of this. At first glance, this is obvious and does not require any explanation, but my question seemed to be naive, but if you think about it, from a formal point of view, the function (-cos x), considered as an independent function, is not a cosine function, how does not coincide with it.
So, A declined to give a more rigorous and formal explanation, which he puts into the concept of "you can not use the cosine." Thus, I believe he did not answer my clarifying question.
Next, I proposed the following idea (a trick, if you can call it that): since I actually knew the value of the integral (2, using the Newton-Leibniz formula with “forbidden” cosine), I said that it is possible to analyze why it is an integer that Perhaps this will lead to the right decision. Knowing the answer, in some cases, it turns out to guess which way the solution could have gone. In response, I was told that it was not good to do this.
In the end, I asked permission to go on to the next question, because I doubted that a solution would come to my mind in the next few minutes, and the interview time was limited.
Solution (my version). I note that after the interview, at home, in a relaxed atmosphere, I still found a solution to this problem. Namely, it was necessary to recall the formula sin (x) = (exp (ix) -exp (-ix)) / (2i), which is a consequence of the well-known Euler formula. After applying this formula, the antiderivative of the original function sin (x) will be - (exp (ix) + exp (-ix)) / 2. In fact, this is the same minus cosine, written in an alternative form.
Further, applying the Newton-Leibniz formula, we get: - (- 1-1) / 2 + (1 + 1) / 2 = 2.
Not sure, by the way, that this decision would be suitable for A, maybe he was seeking some other transformation or representation from me, and this decision would also be rejected. I can only guess. I sent this decision A in a Facebook message on the evening of the interview, but he ignored my message.
Yes, by the way, I would rather estimate the time I spent on the attempts to solve this problem closer to 5 minutes, not 10, as reported by A, since it must be taken into account that I explained some of this time to the ideas that came to me to the head (see above).
Next, I was asked what would have happened if in our world Pi would be equal to 3.
I immediately said that I had heard about such a thing as tweaking the universe. The constant Pi itself is fundamental and can enter into various physical constants. With a slight change in these constants, the world will change so much that it may be impossible to live, and even the existence of molecules remains in question, etc. In general, this is a difficult conversation, here, if you think deeply, you need to start a conversation with a discussion of space and its metrics (the last phrase is my comment made after the interview).
I was asked an additional question of how the rotation of the Earth would change (apparently, the rotation period was meant), if the constant Pi would be different, for example, 3.
I said I didn’t know, because I don’t remember the formulas. But I answered the following: even if Pi does not enter directly into the formula, nevertheless, it is likely that Pi is included in some formulas from which these formulas are derived. Or it is implicitly "wired" in some other constant. That is, I meant that I fully admit that the period of rotation of the Earth could have been different. This is purely from a formal point of view, simply using calculations for a given isolated case.
Honestly, in the second question (about Pi) I could have made some gross errors in the arguments.
But ask yourself the question: what would you answer in a few minutes, being at the interview and not having access to the Internet? Even if it is a formula from the school curriculum and is very simple, should you keep it in mind, especially if it does not apply to your specialization in high school and to your previous work? If yes, then answer the question: "what is the flower formula for the Rosaceae"?
Once again, on Facebook, A then wrote the following:
OK, the whole idea is not bad, but it all depends on the implementation. Below are examples.
You can offer one universal method for this kind of interview.
It is necessary to collect all known proofs of the Pythagorean theorem (and there are 367 of them, according to Wikipedia) and sort them out by simplicity and clarity. Then ask the candidates to prove the Pythagorean theorem. If the candidate suddenly proves it, report that another proof is required, which follows a different scheme (“ And what if you need to offer another proof?”) And so on. After the candidate, exhausted, stops, say, on the first or second proof of the theorem, offer him the simplest and most vivid of the remaining options for the proofs.
Another option: take an exotic example that has a simple solution. For example, ask the candidate to give an example of a metric space in which a situation is possible when a ball of a larger radius lies inside a ball of a smaller radius. This is one of my favorite tasks, by the way. One of its wording is enough to, as A puts it, to introduce a person into a “stupor”.
In terms of A, you can reformulate the problem in this form: “ What if a ball of greater radius is inside a ball of smaller radius? Is it possible? Give an example of an appropriate metric space. ”
And let the candidate thinks, cooked in his juice. It fantasizes. Let him arrange the situation into components and comprehensively assess the situation. Structures, analyzes. I wonder if the whole tool of his brain will help him in this case? What do you think? And the solution is very simple, by the way.
But if a person has never come across such an example, he will not come up with one in 10 minutes, unless he is very talented.
If a person will gush out with some fancy or just wrong ideas, is it necessary? If the candidate is not only completely unaware of the subject area that he is being asked about, but he doesn’t even have something to push off from , how can he decompose the problem into components and evaluate it comprehensively? By the way, a lot here depends on the person’s experience, and this also needs to be taken into account, and sometimes the interviewer himself may not take this into account. Different candidates may have different experiences in different areas of life.
Example. Probably, if you want to estimate how many gas stations in the city of Moscow, it is easier for Muscovite motorists to give a rating, as he can push, for example, from the number of gas stations in his area (which he most likely knows with an accuracy of plus or minus 1-2 ), then, based on the population in your area and the population of the city, to give some assessment and the number of gas stations in the entire city. A person who does not have a car, it is difficult to act according to this scheme, because most likely he has a much less accurate estimate of the number of gas stations in his area.
If the subject area is close to the candidate, but they want some special solution from him, will he always understand what they want from him without the appropriate prompts?
In general, the topic that was formulated by A is actually interesting.
Is it possible to measure some abstract analytical abilities of a person in general without reference to any experience? Is it possible? Just keep in mind that the experience of solving math puzzles is also an experience (sorry for the tautology).
Your opinions?
Addition
The first . I do not blame A for how he conducts interviews. He, as a manager, is recruiting for himself those employees with whom he will work. And he does it the way he sees fit. If he does not like something the candidate, he can refuse them simply without giving reasons.
The second . Despite the previous point, I was jarred over that in my account on facebook A described how he “hung me up” for 10 minutes (you can evaluate the objectivity of this statement yourself from the detail of this interview I described in detail), as well as the epithets “hung”, “Had pity”, etc. In fairness, it should be noted that he did not mention my name and surname, perhaps because of tact. Therefore, I answer him in return.
Third (rhetorical question). Would I like to work with the person who describes the process of communicating with candidates like this? I could get the wrong idea, but probably not.
X - a large well-known company in which an analyst vacancy is open (conditionally)
A - an employee of company X, who conducted interviews
B - HR representative of company X
C - Candidate for a job analyst.
Brief background
Just want to say, I probably would not write here and discuss my interview, if I hadn’t accidentally discovered that A (employee X), who conducted the interview with me, for some reason decided on my Facebook account in the evening the day when the interview took place, lay out a couple of questions that were offered to me on this interview. And also, it seemed to me, to describe it in a somewhat negative connotation, incl. using the terms "hung" (as applied to the applicant), "go into a stupor", "take pity", etc.
It is also very unusual for me, it can be said that I meet for the first time such that the details of my interview, albeit in an impersonal form, are made publicly available, and this is not done first by the candidate (me), but just a company representative.
')
His message was quoted by other Facebook users. A discussion took place in one of the branches, and I also entered into it, promising one of these days to tell in detail about the view of this interview on my part (that is, on the part of the candidate).
The next morning, A (the one who interviewed me) deleted his original message, and with it all the discussions of other participants were erased. I didn’t know what exactly prompted him to do this, perhaps A understood that his message in itself causes reputational damage to company X in the eyes of applicants, but I also admit that it is connected with the fact that I wanted to give my comments.
However, since I promised to answer this topic, I still do it, despite the fact that the topic itself was erased.
Some restrictions
I will not disclose here the true names / names of X, A and B, as well as comment, confirm or deny any guesses, questions and statements relating to them. Also, I will not talk in more detail about the vacancy itself, about the content of the rest of the interview and any other details, since they do not relate to the essence of the question. I note only that, despite the fact that I have a mathematical education that I received more than 10 years ago, in the description of a vacancy it was not said that deep, extensive or some specific knowledge of mathematics is required, with the exception of experience application of methods of mathematical statistics in the list of requirements.
Message A (company employee) in my Facebook account after interviewing me
Today I have “hung up” a candidate (mathematician) with a question about how to calculate the integral from 0 to Pi of the function sin (x), without using cosine.
After 10 minus the candidate otviz, and I finished off his question, what would be in the world if Pi were equal to 3.
A good analyst (the name of colleague A is indicated here) also suggested Pi ^ 2 = 10, but I took pity on the candidate
I note that this quote is almost verbatim, if necessary, those who saw it can confirm it.
In his response to one of the comments on this post, And also writes the following (exact quote):
About puzzles from the category: "What if?". Sometimes a person goes into a stupor. Sometimes begins a riot of imagination about one thing. Sometimes a person puts the situation into components and through them comprehensively assesses the situation as a whole. Such a “game” helps to understand how a person will think with a reduced induced effect from experience. Actually, the main thing in analytics is the way he thinks. Asking about knowledge, thinking is very difficult to learn.
A look at the interview with the candidate
So, consider the first question I was asked: how to calculate the integral from 0 to Pi of the function sin (x).
In my quick answer, that you can take a primitive, and then use the Newton-Leibniz formula, I was told that a new condition is added: cosine cannot be used in calculations.
I must say that I like such questions, I like to solve non-standard and entertaining math problems. Therefore, the question itself seemed to me immediately interesting, and I began to think about it.
But then one important note should be made. I was forbidden to use paper with a pen (naturally, it wasn’t even about the Internet). And no guiding questions or clues (I clearly asked if there would be any clues).
A (the one who interviewed me) wrote on Facebook that he “hung me up” for 10 minutes.
First, I do not like this term “hung up” by itself, since any process of deliberation over a task (especially not trivial) can also be formally described as “hung up”. People who solve problems in the standings or at the Olympiad in silence - they are also in the "hanging" state? So what?
Secondly, this phrase gives the impression that I just sat there, was silent, did not even suggest any approaches to the solution, any assessments.
But it is not.
On the contrary, knowing that in company X from the candidates they want to hear not only the decision itself, but also its reasoning, even if they do not lead to the right decision, I tried to say what ideas came to my mind to somehow demonstrate the course of my thoughts .
In order:
I immediately said that, since the sine function is odd, then, for example, the integral from -Pi / 2 to Pi / 2 will be 0. To which A expressed doubt, that sine is an odd function, and also takes zero zero value. But after I demonstrated my confidence in this, he nodded in agreement. This reaction of A puzzled me a bit, although I fully admit that in this case it is just a test of the candidate's confidence, and nothing more.
At the same time, A asked me if this could somehow be used to answer the original question. I did not understand exactly how to use it at once, and said so (I repeat, you cannot use a piece of paper with a pen).
Then I suggested (as an idea) expanding sin (x) in a row (xx ^ 3/3! + ...) and calculate the integral of a polynomial. Later, after the interview, I realized that this decision was a dead end, because after integrating this polynomial, decomposition for minus cosine will be obtained; otherwise, it did not occur to me how to calculate the sum of a series otherwise. Another thing is that this method will allow you to quickly calculate the approximate value, but in your mind it will obviously not work.
OK, we go further.
For lack of any clues, I suggested estimating the integral above and below. Bottom - “house”, the left side of the “roof” of which is formed by the function y = x * 2 / Pi. It was completely inconvenient to do without an explanation in the figure, so I dared to draw this house to make it clearer what I was talking about. A again had some doubt in my words, and I said that evaluation is possible, since the function sin (x) is convex upwards from 0 to Pi. Therefore, from the bottom, the simplest estimate from below will be equal to the area of ​​these two triangles under the sine graph, namely, Pi / 2. The simplest upper estimate is determined by the rectangle formed from the top of the straight line y = 1. Thus, as a top estimate, I suggested Pi.
Next, I clarified with him what it means "you cannot use the cosine." I asked for a strict logical definition of this. At first glance, this is obvious and does not require any explanation, but my question seemed to be naive, but if you think about it, from a formal point of view, the function (-cos x), considered as an independent function, is not a cosine function, how does not coincide with it.
So, A declined to give a more rigorous and formal explanation, which he puts into the concept of "you can not use the cosine." Thus, I believe he did not answer my clarifying question.
Next, I proposed the following idea (a trick, if you can call it that): since I actually knew the value of the integral (2, using the Newton-Leibniz formula with “forbidden” cosine), I said that it is possible to analyze why it is an integer that Perhaps this will lead to the right decision. Knowing the answer, in some cases, it turns out to guess which way the solution could have gone. In response, I was told that it was not good to do this.
In the end, I asked permission to go on to the next question, because I doubted that a solution would come to my mind in the next few minutes, and the interview time was limited.
Solution (my version). I note that after the interview, at home, in a relaxed atmosphere, I still found a solution to this problem. Namely, it was necessary to recall the formula sin (x) = (exp (ix) -exp (-ix)) / (2i), which is a consequence of the well-known Euler formula. After applying this formula, the antiderivative of the original function sin (x) will be - (exp (ix) + exp (-ix)) / 2. In fact, this is the same minus cosine, written in an alternative form.
Further, applying the Newton-Leibniz formula, we get: - (- 1-1) / 2 + (1 + 1) / 2 = 2.
Not sure, by the way, that this decision would be suitable for A, maybe he was seeking some other transformation or representation from me, and this decision would also be rejected. I can only guess. I sent this decision A in a Facebook message on the evening of the interview, but he ignored my message.
Yes, by the way, I would rather estimate the time I spent on the attempts to solve this problem closer to 5 minutes, not 10, as reported by A, since it must be taken into account that I explained some of this time to the ideas that came to me to the head (see above).
Next, I was asked what would have happened if in our world Pi would be equal to 3.
I immediately said that I had heard about such a thing as tweaking the universe. The constant Pi itself is fundamental and can enter into various physical constants. With a slight change in these constants, the world will change so much that it may be impossible to live, and even the existence of molecules remains in question, etc. In general, this is a difficult conversation, here, if you think deeply, you need to start a conversation with a discussion of space and its metrics (the last phrase is my comment made after the interview).
I was asked an additional question of how the rotation of the Earth would change (apparently, the rotation period was meant), if the constant Pi would be different, for example, 3.
I said I didn’t know, because I don’t remember the formulas. But I answered the following: even if Pi does not enter directly into the formula, nevertheless, it is likely that Pi is included in some formulas from which these formulas are derived. Or it is implicitly "wired" in some other constant. That is, I meant that I fully admit that the period of rotation of the Earth could have been different. This is purely from a formal point of view, simply using calculations for a given isolated case.
Honestly, in the second question (about Pi) I could have made some gross errors in the arguments.
But ask yourself the question: what would you answer in a few minutes, being at the interview and not having access to the Internet? Even if it is a formula from the school curriculum and is very simple, should you keep it in mind, especially if it does not apply to your specialization in high school and to your previous work? If yes, then answer the question: "what is the flower formula for the Rosaceae"?
Once again, on Facebook, A then wrote the following:
About puzzles from the category: "What if?". Sometimes a person goes into a stupor. Sometimes begins a riot of imagination about one thing. Sometimes a person puts the situation into components and through them comprehensively assesses the situation as a whole. Such a “game” helps to understand how a person will think with a reduced induced effect from experience. Actually, the main thing in analytics is the way he thinks. Asking about knowledge, thinking is very difficult to learn.
OK, the whole idea is not bad, but it all depends on the implementation. Below are examples.
You can offer one universal method for this kind of interview.
It is necessary to collect all known proofs of the Pythagorean theorem (and there are 367 of them, according to Wikipedia) and sort them out by simplicity and clarity. Then ask the candidates to prove the Pythagorean theorem. If the candidate suddenly proves it, report that another proof is required, which follows a different scheme (“ And what if you need to offer another proof?”) And so on. After the candidate, exhausted, stops, say, on the first or second proof of the theorem, offer him the simplest and most vivid of the remaining options for the proofs.
Another option: take an exotic example that has a simple solution. For example, ask the candidate to give an example of a metric space in which a situation is possible when a ball of a larger radius lies inside a ball of a smaller radius. This is one of my favorite tasks, by the way. One of its wording is enough to, as A puts it, to introduce a person into a “stupor”.
In terms of A, you can reformulate the problem in this form: “ What if a ball of greater radius is inside a ball of smaller radius? Is it possible? Give an example of an appropriate metric space. ”
And let the candidate thinks, cooked in his juice. It fantasizes. Let him arrange the situation into components and comprehensively assess the situation. Structures, analyzes. I wonder if the whole tool of his brain will help him in this case? What do you think? And the solution is very simple, by the way.
But if a person has never come across such an example, he will not come up with one in 10 minutes, unless he is very talented.
If a person will gush out with some fancy or just wrong ideas, is it necessary? If the candidate is not only completely unaware of the subject area that he is being asked about, but he doesn’t even have something to push off from , how can he decompose the problem into components and evaluate it comprehensively? By the way, a lot here depends on the person’s experience, and this also needs to be taken into account, and sometimes the interviewer himself may not take this into account. Different candidates may have different experiences in different areas of life.
Example. Probably, if you want to estimate how many gas stations in the city of Moscow, it is easier for Muscovite motorists to give a rating, as he can push, for example, from the number of gas stations in his area (which he most likely knows with an accuracy of plus or minus 1-2 ), then, based on the population in your area and the population of the city, to give some assessment and the number of gas stations in the entire city. A person who does not have a car, it is difficult to act according to this scheme, because most likely he has a much less accurate estimate of the number of gas stations in his area.
If the subject area is close to the candidate, but they want some special solution from him, will he always understand what they want from him without the appropriate prompts?
In general, the topic that was formulated by A is actually interesting.
Is it possible to measure some abstract analytical abilities of a person in general without reference to any experience? Is it possible? Just keep in mind that the experience of solving math puzzles is also an experience (sorry for the tautology).
Your opinions?
Addition
The first . I do not blame A for how he conducts interviews. He, as a manager, is recruiting for himself those employees with whom he will work. And he does it the way he sees fit. If he does not like something the candidate, he can refuse them simply without giving reasons.
The second . Despite the previous point, I was jarred over that in my account on facebook A described how he “hung me up” for 10 minutes (you can evaluate the objectivity of this statement yourself from the detail of this interview I described in detail), as well as the epithets “hung”, “Had pity”, etc. In fairness, it should be noted that he did not mention my name and surname, perhaps because of tact. Therefore, I answer him in return.
Third (rhetorical question). Would I like to work with the person who describes the process of communicating with candidates like this? I could get the wrong idea, but probably not.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/285604/
All Articles