Job Interview 2.0: Now with a crossword puzzle!
A few years ago, someone at microsoft noticed that they had a small problem with resources. With human resources to be exact. Many vacancies were opened (thousands) for which many applicants claimed (hundreds of thousands), but there was no way to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. Therefore, they decided to reinvent the job interview.
Traditionally, interviews are used to clarify two things: how competent the applicant is and how well his personality (or lack thereof) will fit into the organization. In developing Interview 2.0, Microsoft took both of these concepts into account and added a third one: how the candidate will respond to stupid, completely pointless and incredibly stupid questions nazapasku.
Of course, common sense tells us that the applicant, who likes to solve all sorts of stupid puzzles, is likely to be delighted with them during the interview. The same can be said about pepperoni pizza: it is likely that if the applicant loves to eat pepperoni pizza, then at the interview he will not mind to taste it. Although both facts look absolutely fantastic (wow, and you also like pepperoni ?!), at the same time they do not at all contribute to the identification of worthy programmers.
')
If you have never met with questions from Microsoft Interview 2.0, here are a few:
* How would you determine the weight of the Boeing 747?
* An opaque box with three bulbs inside and three switches on the outside is given, how would you define which light bulbs correspond to the switches, if the box can be opened only once, and only when all the switches are finally set to one of the states?
* You are on the edge of the gorge with three people and you need to cross the suspension bridge. You can go it in a minute, the rest for two, five and ten respectively. A flashlight is required to go (there is only one in a group), and only two can move at a time. How to move the bridge as quickly as possible?
Of course, since there are no puzzles about common sense or any practical value. That is why I would fail miserably with this part of Job Interview 2.0:
* I would ask Boeing ... Can't Boeing be asked? Well, I would then ask the librarian ... Already the librarian should know for sure, they always dig in the books, they have such a job!
* Who could have made such a useless thing and a broken thing? I would fix it ... Yes, I did not even see this stupid box! How do you know that I could not fix it?
* Of course we would leave a leisurely guy. We are definitely in a bad place under a bad set of circumstances, and we don’t have time for a fat fat that delays everyone. The strongest survives!
Fortunately, Microsoft realized that not everyone who likes to solve these puzzles are good programmers, just as good programmers do not always like these puzzles. In fact, some of those who love such puzzles just fall into that category of people whom you would not like to see programmers. Would you like to work with a guy who builds a huge barge, bring a Boeing 747 to the port, and then estimate how many tons of water the aircraft has forced out, instead of just calling Boeing?
Unfortunately, the understanding came to Microsoft too late: around the concept of Interviewing 2.0 a whole mini-industry unfolded. Since Microsoft is doing this, it must be the true path, right? On writing puzzles, books have been written, special consultants have been trained, who can drive more than one applicant with your company puzzles, and now everything from small firms to good old banks are asking foolish questions at interviews.
One day they will see the failure of this practice. One day they will stop using it. In the meantime, you, the applicant, will just have to accept. Or not. One reader shared a story about his interview with riddles.
During the interview, I was asked how I would develop a bicycle for a visually impaired person? I answered something like “What, for the blind, what?”, And she answered yes.
I thought a little and then answered, “Well ... blind on a bicycle, this is quite a dangerous combination, so I would make the bicycle stationary, possibly with a fan blowing into the face of a cyclist. Most likely he will not feel the difference. ”
She simply had no words.
All right, he won't get a job. Despite the complete absurdity of the stated requirements, and the high practical value of his answer, the work will go to those who manage to answer the question, proposing an extremely over-complicated solution to a non-existent problem. And it is this person who will develop their programs.
Traditionally, interviews are used to clarify two things: how competent the applicant is and how well his personality (or lack thereof) will fit into the organization. In developing Interview 2.0, Microsoft took both of these concepts into account and added a third one: how the candidate will respond to stupid, completely pointless and incredibly stupid questions nazapasku.
Of course, common sense tells us that the applicant, who likes to solve all sorts of stupid puzzles, is likely to be delighted with them during the interview. The same can be said about pepperoni pizza: it is likely that if the applicant loves to eat pepperoni pizza, then at the interview he will not mind to taste it. Although both facts look absolutely fantastic (wow, and you also like pepperoni ?!), at the same time they do not at all contribute to the identification of worthy programmers.
')
If you have never met with questions from Microsoft Interview 2.0, here are a few:
* How would you determine the weight of the Boeing 747?
* An opaque box with three bulbs inside and three switches on the outside is given, how would you define which light bulbs correspond to the switches, if the box can be opened only once, and only when all the switches are finally set to one of the states?
* You are on the edge of the gorge with three people and you need to cross the suspension bridge. You can go it in a minute, the rest for two, five and ten respectively. A flashlight is required to go (there is only one in a group), and only two can move at a time. How to move the bridge as quickly as possible?
Of course, since there are no puzzles about common sense or any practical value. That is why I would fail miserably with this part of Job Interview 2.0:
* I would ask Boeing ... Can't Boeing be asked? Well, I would then ask the librarian ... Already the librarian should know for sure, they always dig in the books, they have such a job!
* Who could have made such a useless thing and a broken thing? I would fix it ... Yes, I did not even see this stupid box! How do you know that I could not fix it?
* Of course we would leave a leisurely guy. We are definitely in a bad place under a bad set of circumstances, and we don’t have time for a fat fat that delays everyone. The strongest survives!
Fortunately, Microsoft realized that not everyone who likes to solve these puzzles are good programmers, just as good programmers do not always like these puzzles. In fact, some of those who love such puzzles just fall into that category of people whom you would not like to see programmers. Would you like to work with a guy who builds a huge barge, bring a Boeing 747 to the port, and then estimate how many tons of water the aircraft has forced out, instead of just calling Boeing?
Unfortunately, the understanding came to Microsoft too late: around the concept of Interviewing 2.0 a whole mini-industry unfolded. Since Microsoft is doing this, it must be the true path, right? On writing puzzles, books have been written, special consultants have been trained, who can drive more than one applicant with your company puzzles, and now everything from small firms to good old banks are asking foolish questions at interviews.
One day they will see the failure of this practice. One day they will stop using it. In the meantime, you, the applicant, will just have to accept. Or not. One reader shared a story about his interview with riddles.
During the interview, I was asked how I would develop a bicycle for a visually impaired person? I answered something like “What, for the blind, what?”, And she answered yes.
I thought a little and then answered, “Well ... blind on a bicycle, this is quite a dangerous combination, so I would make the bicycle stationary, possibly with a fan blowing into the face of a cyclist. Most likely he will not feel the difference. ”
She simply had no words.
All right, he won't get a job. Despite the complete absurdity of the stated requirements, and the high practical value of his answer, the work will go to those who manage to answer the question, proposing an extremely over-complicated solution to a non-existent problem. And it is this person who will develop their programs.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31131/
All Articles