Leonardo da Vinci spent a full decade — considerably longer than was customary — apprenticing at a Florentine bottega, or workshop, run by a man named Andrea del Verrocchio. A good artist but a better businessman, Verrocchio surely spotted the burgeoning genius in the young artist from an “illegitimate” family, but he nonetheless insisted Leonardo start on the bottom rung like everyone else, sweeping floors and cleaning chicken cages. (The eggs were used to make tempera paint before the advent of oil.) Gradually, Verrocchio gave his charge greater responsibility, even permitting him to paint portions of his own artwork. Why did Leonardo stay an apprentice for so long? He could easily have found work elsewhere, but he clearly valued the experience he acquired in the dusty, chaotic workshop. Too often, modern-day mentoring programs, public or private, are lip service. They must instead, as during Leonardo’s time, entail meaningful, long-term relationships between mentors and their mentees.
https://hbr.org/2016/01/renaissance-florence-was-a-better-mo...
I have decades of solid experience. Multiple 3-digit starred projects on Github. Typically the person that interviews me learns something from me in the interview process.
As I said, it is getting ridiculous. Possibly it is a way to age discriminate, not entirely sure.
That's what most of tech hr is. The age discrimination that happens is a symptom of a much larger problem.
In general, I feel that a couple of technical questions relating to the fundamentals of the platform you're working with. Getting a feel for who they are and their track record for either delivering on the stack you are working with or in delivering on stacks with which they have little initial familiarity. Some people are particularly adept at learning entire stacks and delivering solutions in times that other developers are incapable of delivering on stacks with which they claim intimate familiarity. Others are amazing at delivering on a particular stack but have no clue how to achieve anything outside that stack.
I think the biggest issue is that interviewers have no idea how to abstract contextual information when removed from their development environment. They think that everyone needs to look and think like them... and if they don't, they're not a good fit.
As for hiring people they like that are technically inept vs. turning away candidates that are technically adept but awkward. I guess it comes down to social aptitude - being technically awesome is only half of the requirement. You've also gotta be likable or you're not getting hired.
In a way, this is a good thing for me. Getting a job isn't part of the equation. There is only one good reason for me to get better at my tech stack. It's because I want it to be easier for me to make good software.
Or maybe how Kent Beck hiring process went at FB: https://www.quora.com/How-was-Kent-Beck-recruited-to-Faceboo...
Edit: first case was Homebrew's creator at google: https://twitter.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 (thanks, livingparadox!)
So why is this such a big deal? The assumption here is that passing a Google interview is /the/ bar for success as a software engineer. Guy builds homebrew (success) and guy fails google interview (fail). Cognitive dissonance!
It's not surprising that there are a diverse set of skills required for building good software, especially if one is playing every role by themselves. Then it's also not surprising that at a large corporate environment, each one of these roles are usually taken on by separate people, and there is a lot more specialization. Then it's not surprising that they're ignoring all the other skills this person brings to the table - they're probably going to be squandered. It's also not surprising that a large corporation with a massive inflow of great candidates is going to have a diluted and uninteresting interview process because no matter what they're doing, they're going to get some good or at least motivated people one way or the other. It's yet again unsurprising that they fail to take their own advice when their internal studies find out that brain teaser questions or questions that don't have anything to do with the day to day work don't really predict success, because I think a lot of people who are established there passed through that bar, and ascribe their success to it despite the evidence. So it's a cultural change issue too.
Anyway, I got rejected by google when I was in college, and I took it personally at first, and now I don't. I'm not really proud of it, but I've learned to not think lesser of myself because of it. I have a perfectly fine job that I enjoy and even more opportunities. So it's possible!
Interesting, did not hear about that. I wonder if a system package manager could be coming to OS X in the future.
Guess what - Leonardo wasn't a superstar back then but he'd worked in Verrocchio's workshop, a workshop that was one of the best in Florence. He learned an immense level of technical skills there. Then he also was a master in the Guild of Saint Luke in Florence. Then he painted the Adoration of the Magi (which was never finished, but whatever). Then he made a silver lyre, which the medici family sent to the Sforzas for a peace accord.
So the modern equivalent of this is something like (and I'm making this up clearly) someone who started at a regionally famous company at a young age, worked there for years to cut their teeth, meanwhile was a regular presence at conferences or Meetup groups in the area, who then worked on a company that generated some buzz but didn't succeed ultimately, and then one of their VCs introduced him to another company.
So, not the same as a person with no experience to show for getting a daylong interview with fizzbuzz and a take home project. In fact the "interview" probably took days to weeks in that case!
edit: And yes, of course I don't think that's a good way to conduct interviews. But it sure as hell wasn't a better or more efficient or more equal opportunity system back then. Progress has happened since then. It just should be happening at a much faster rate now and it's not.