Actually, this demonstrates a problem right here. It's not clear to me what you mean by these terms. A quick Google search ("trunk-first vs branch-first svn") suggests that you're not using common terminology.

After thinking about it for a minute or two, what I _think_ you're asking is "should all development happen on a common branch, or should developers create separate branches for individual features/fixes, merging back into the mainline when finished". And, indeed, I'd be happy to have a conversation with you about this.

But if it takes me a couple of minutes to figure this out while just sitting here at home, in the pressure of an interview, I'm probably going to fumble, or say "I don't understand what you mean", which will make me wonder if I've blown the entire interview. This despite the fact that I've been programming for 20 years and have used a number of version control systems (CVS, ClearCase, P4, Subversion, and most recently Git).

Have you worked for a company that strives to do as much development as possible in 'trunk', creating a release branch near deployment time for production bugfixes? Have you worked for a company that preferred to branch at the outset of new development, merging back to 'trunk' periodically? What did you find to be the strengths and weaknesses of each approach?

Their answer lets me read between the lines and gleen much more information about their work history. Have they worked in settings where multiple work streams were in development simultaneously? Do they have substantial experience in collaborating without trampling on shared resources? If so, then they usually mention the different pain points in merging. I don't consider there to be a "right" or "wrong" answer to this question, and not having a clever answer certainly doesn't disqualify someone from being a strong programmer. But it does help to level-set, and identify candidates who think like team leads or might be well suited for responsibly beyond raw coding.

However, I don't want too much text between parentheses that are injected into a long sentence. So you get "trunk-first vs. branch-first". :)

I feel like dev interviews are full of questions like this, things that require some expertise and experience to answer, but do virtually nothing to predict on-the-job performance.

When you ask an interview question, you are pricing candidates. That's obvious when you think about it: you're screening, and so your questions alter the supply of candidates that will hit the bottom of your screening processes. Fewer selectees -> poorer employer BATNA -> higher prices.

Do you really want to price candidates based on how they use version control tools? How much are you willing to pay extra for people who have a lot of experience with different VC methodologies? Are you sure the weight of your questions about VC match up with the (hopefully minimal) premium you're hoping to pay for VC expertise?

However, if you list "10 years experience with <Technology X>" on your resume, then you should absolutely be prepared to discuss your experience with <Technology X> at a high level. Not anal minutia or contrived trick questions, but certainly you should be able to respond to an open-ended question about the basics with enough context to show that you weren't lying to pad your resume.

More importantly, as I explained in the parent comment, I am interested to see if their response reflects experience with multiple teams working on parallel over overlapping efforts within the same codebase simultaneously. Everyone says that they have experience like that, but if you poke a bit deeper you find that half the time it's exaggerated. They may have worked in a context with multiple teams, but affecting the same area of the application or system. If you have had legit experience of this kind, or at least show a high level of insight in talking through the issues that can arise, then you might be considered for a team lead role sooner than you otherwise might have been. As I said earlier, it's not a "right or wrong" question that can disqualify you from being a capable programmer... it's a "level setting" question that helps gauge which level of responsibility you might start out with.

I think that's an unfair interpretation of what StevePerkins is saying.

I don't get the impression from him that VCS knowledge in particular will make-or-break a candidate. He's saying that IF the candidate put it on his resume, then the candidate himself is the one who opened that door for discussion.

Out of the infinite list of programming topics to discuss, what are some options to narrow it down? Well, the candidate (through his own volition) put <Topic X> on his resume... so... let's talk about Topic X! It doesn't matter what Topic X happens to be (whether it's "svn", "parallel algorithms", "Ruby", "TDD", "cloud scaling", whatever). What matters is that the candidate is the one who thought it important enough to highlight it. From there, it's reasonable to think it's something the candidate is already comfortable with discussing in depth. If not, he shouldn't put it on the resume.

Your response makes it seem like StevePerkins is playing Alex Trebek with Jeopardy random topics and asking "gotcha" questions. It's not random -- the source is the candidate's resume. It certainly seems fair and reasonable to discuss any topics the candidate put on his resume. Imo, it's also fair to augment with questions that are not represented on his resume (but that's a different discussion from StevePerkin's example.)

If you have a significant amount of experience then hopefully you have seen enough different situations to be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

It's really a question to figure out whether or not you can reason about high level concepts.

For example, the 1-in-a-million candidate that has used git with a CI/CD configuration (note: I'm also outside SV) versus the candidate who uses TFS ("git? You mean Github? Yes).

This question is a trifecta of ineffective candidate screening tactics:

(a) It's a technical screening question, one a strong candidate could get wrong, based on a technical aptitude that is trivial to teach on the job and thus rarely worth paying a premium for.

(b) It's a subjective technical question, for which reasonable engineers can have differing opinions, which means it's an outlet for interviewer subconscious bias. Did the interviewer just eat lunch? Candidates will do better on this question if they have.

(c) It's a tea-leaf-reading question about engineering/team management: it's superficially and overtly about technology, but subtextually about a bunch of other things. Let's hope the candidate realizes that.

A typical interview lasts about 60 minutes. Let's say it takes 10 minutes to pursue this particular line of inquiry. That's 16% of your interview you're spending with a question that greatly rewards people who are good at talking about technology. Worse, if you ask that question early to a quiet but excellent candidate, you can psych them out, which means you pay for that version control question in every other question you ask.

It is totally reasonable to assess soft skills and team compatibility. But you have to design an interview that does it. You can't improv it based on candidate resumes.

Avoid questions like this.

This thread started with someone saying they're pretty good at interviews. It turns out that they try to assess soft skills with technology questions based on the luck- of- the- draw of candidate resumes. Candidates with effective resumes will have an easy time passing these interviews. From the comments on this thread, that obviously sounds reasonable to some people.

I submit: those people are not competing for talent. They may think they are, but the real contenders in this market won't be OK with letting good candidates slip past because their job-hunting skills aren't finely tuned. In fact: they'll do the opposite: those candidates are steals in this market.

The original commenter acknowledged that when he said that his experience was that the market was full of poor candidates. If that's the case, you especially can't afford to filter out effective devs because they fail to impress you when they explain how they use version control, or when their resume overstates their facility with version control.

Do you believe that technical phone pre-screens are ineffective in general? From what I've read Matasano doesn't pre-screen candidates, but provides complementary study materials instead. Is that because the subject matter is specialized? Would you approach hiring web dev roles differently?

From your remarks, it sounds like you would reject the practice of asking open-ended interview questions (e.g. describe your workflow, describe a typical day, describe a recent project) due to interference from the interviewer's bias. What, if any, value do you place on open-ended questions?

We do free-form technical interviews, but only to try to detect candidates who really aren't ready for the work-sample challenges. Our in-person interviews are standardized and try to evaluate consulting/architecture skills that are hard (impossible?) to measure without people. These involve open-ended intermediary questions, but the final answers are structured.

The bottom line is this: you cannot compare candidates using free-form interviews. You must compare candidates who are going to be doing similar work. Thus, free-form interviews have no evaluative value.

And it's relevant to a job like sales. (That's unsurprising because a job interview is actually a sales meeting.) And many management jobs do have a sales aspect -- you have to justify budgets, sell work inside the company, et cetera.

But if explaining our work to outsiders were a particularly important or routine skill for programmers, we wouldn't be so bad at it. And, on average, we are bad at it. Because our actual on-the-job communication, which we practice all the time, is largely written and asynchronous, taking place on media like Slack or Github. It relies on plenty of job-specific shared knowledge, domain experience, and jargon, and it all happens in the shadow of a job-specific shared codebase that is supposed to speak for itself -- the whole point of software is to build something that works by itself -- but is also perpetually unfinished.

There are social skills that are important to have on a software team, but it's difficult to judge them in an interview. Interviews are staged events. Challenging a candidate to defend a resume in an interview is like asking them to do improv comedy, and selects for many of the same factors: Verbal gracefulness, comfort in the spotlight, the ability to seamlessly change the subject, and the amount of time spent in rehearsal. Good candidates rehearse their resumes. We get to write them ourselves, after all, and with practice we learn to design them with hooks that lead into our best material.

Oh, but surely they'll write documentation? Programmers, by and large, seem to suck at that too, which is why we have tech writers. But somebody still needs to explain to the tech writer what's happening! And only a few companies seem to carry tech writers for internal only products.

To put it simply, if I ask somebody how their code works and they say "Go away for an hour while I write documents" I think I'd rather not work with them. Or worse, they ask me for help debugging but can't tell me what they're trying to do. No thank you.

"Hello, coworker! Did you enjoy the cake we both got to eat the other day in the company cafeteria?"

"By the way, I'd like to ask you a question, and don't worry: This isn't an interview or anything, so if you can't answer me right away, or if your answer lacks grace, it's not as if you'll lose your job."

"Anyway, coworker: I found this code, which you wrote while working for my company, under the direction of my company's management, and which solves a problem that my company actually has, and which builds upon my team's platforms, languages, and coding standards, and which might even link directly to my code, and which both of us have had a moment to read and think about and which is right in front of us on this monitor. How does this code work?"

"Also, can you help me debug this code I have here? It builds atop the code I showed you last week, and is written in the same language that we all use, and attempts to solve a problem you've seen before – which is not a coincidence, because you were the person who asked me to solve the problem."

These questions are incredibly relevant to our work, but interviews can't cover them. Candidates are not our coworkers and they share none of our context. Instead, interviews are, at best, an exercise in prediction. In practice, they are often an exercise in magical thinking.

During the workday, people aren't being constantly judged. They don't implement functions on whiteboards without unit tests, solve brainteasers out loud during stand-up meetings, or implement quicksort from memory. They do have to explain code to coworkers, but not to people who don't understand the problem space, the language, the background, or the constraints. These rarely-exercised feats of skill are valuable -- sales is valuable -- and our gut feeling is that such feats are somehow related to relevant job skills. But gut feelings are often wrong. And not every job is in sales.

Depending on the experience of the candidates he's trying to acquire/interview, this may be appropriate to indicate that they have either experienced different ways of developing at different companies, or have an interest in software development practices wider than just "The way I've done it is the way I was told."

I'd consider it an 'indicator' question, indicating that the candidate has either experience or interest in software delivery and the way that different organisations work/operate. It's probably not a make-or-break question, but if a candidate had a good number of years under his belt and hasn't at least heard of some kinds of different practices then they might be the "do what I'm told but no more" coder that that organisation wants to avoid.

You might want to build an interview process that selects candidates who belong to the latter set. I'm a little baffled why you'd want to select from the former set in preference to the latter.

I'm not trying to get in an ego stroking contest here, I'm just providing anecdata.

I worked with SVN for ~4 years and git for ~4 more. What StevePerkins was asking was perfectly clear to me after about three seconds of thinking. Of course, in an interview, I would be sure to parrot back my understanding of the question. :)

FWIW, you and I understood his question to mean the same thing.

Of course this again biases against people who suck at interviewing (too nervous or whatever).

It's not a terminology question, it's a concept question. A good candidate should be able to recognize abstract concepts regardless of the words used to describe them. Even in an interview setting.

I think I'm a pretty good programmer and I've got a reasonable body of work on GitHub to back it up, but I've often failed technical interviews because I go to pieces under the pressure and my brain just stops working. I've been a dev for > 15 years but if anything I've got worse at interviewing over time. I only apply for positions that I genuinely think I'd be good at, but the technical interview gives the impression that I'm a clueless idiot. From my (admittedly selfish) point of view, the approach proposed in the article seems much better than the process you describe here.

And remember, even though the primary skill you're interviewing for is coding, they are also testing you for communications ability. Being able to clearly and concisely explain what you're doing is at least as important as being able to get things done.

Plus, as one other commenter points out elsewhere in this thread, once you've been on the other side of the table for a while, you get a much better idea of where your own strengths lie (and what you're up against, which can instil a lot more confidence than you might think!).

I like to ask people about side projects, and what is the latest interesting thing that they've been learning in their own time. However, my issue with the "Your-GitHub-Is-Your-Resume" nonsense is that it falls apart past the age of 30. Before I got married and had kids, I used to spend almost every waking moment of personal time (and about half of my employer's time, to be honest) working on areas of personal interest. I wrote a handful of minor open source frameworks that are too obsolete to be worth mentioning, a set of Java bindings to the wxWidget library, authored a book, and served as technical reviewer for a stack of other books.

Then I got married, and became a father.

Now, quite frankly, I don't do that anymore. I just can't. It isn't a matter of passion, it's a matter of physics. My GitHub account includes some small personal apps that I tinker with from time to time (e.g. a diet and exercise tracking application), but I would be MORTIFIED if someone thought that was a representative sample for job application purposes. It's a fairly trivial web app, that I could just as well have written 10 years ago.

In fact, the type of work that you do later in your career really doesn't lend itself to showcasing in a small GitHub portfolio. You work on Node.js websites, with whichever client-side data binding framework is popular this week? Awesome, GitHub would be perfect for showcasing an example of that. But your most recent projects include integrating a dozen microservices with an AMQP broker and Apache Camel, or using Spark to crawl a mass of data in a Cassandra cluster? Large scale development just doesn't lend itself as well to representation in a personal GitHub portfolio.

So side projects may be a useful screening tool with junior level candidates for web developer positions, but I think it's a naive suggestion for more senior level candidates in more complex domains.

The notion of having an on-site coding exercise is better in my opinion, but that's not a panacea either. Anything worthwhile would probably take a matter of hours, turning your on-site interview into an all day affair for which the candidate would have to take a full day of PTO from their current job. There is NO WAY that I would submit to something like that unless I was already very far into the recruiting process with a particular company, and very much interested in working there already. You're not going to reach that point unless you already have technical screening tools in an earlier stage of the process, so there you are right back at the original problem.

I do agree with the article, as well as many of the comments here, that "whiteboard exercises" are a fairly pointless tool (e.g. "write a recursive function to traverse this tree", or "walk me through your process for guessing how many golf balls could fit in an airplane"). Even though my company does a bit of that too, I grumble about it and refuse to incorporate any of that into my stage of the process. However, almost all of the alternatives that I've heard suggested seem to be proposed by very young junior-level devs, who lack perspective on what their career path and mindset are going to look like 10 years down the line.

I wonder if there are any careers where you only have to get good at the thing you're doing rather than a bunch of meta-things.

I think it's great when the practice of some discipline or craft has beneficial effects in other areas of our our lives.

If you're interested, the way I got over it was by just accepting the fact the interview process is not perfect and in the end I have no idea what these people are looking for. That being the case, I just do my best and enjoy the fact I get to work on algorithmic questions usually much more interesting than what I would get to see while working. I guess I try to just have fun!

It really seems like a lot of people freak out because they are afraid of rejection. I don't want to get stereotypical about how nerds are antisocial or whatever, but I definitely found that once I stopped caring whether I was going to get hired or not, I started doing and feeling a lot better. I actually started enjoying interviews because I get to see interesting questions, see what other people are working on, and because I am junior, learn about more technologies and why they decided to use them.

Really, it's more like "99% of the people still searching, who don't have a documented contribution history, and don't have a network that lets them find good jobs in a heartbeat, who must resort to this to find a job[1], can't answer basic questions."

Most of the talent pool is working and has to be pried away; they won't show up through HR channels.

[1] Not a diss, by the way; I count myself in that set, though am still not "on the market", and still don't fail at fizzbuzz style questions.

But I've been thinking about the marginal value of each additional technical question. In other words, how much additional relevant information do you get about a candidate increase with each increasing level of difficulty?

For instance, suppose you ask fizzbuzz and the candidate has an easy time of it. Then you ask about building/searching a binary tree, which the developer manages, but only after fumbling round a bit. Then you get into finding cycles in linked lists or graphs, and the developer takes a crack at it, but would need to look it up. Or maybe the developer gets it, and the interviewer ask about finding all permutations of a string...

How much more do you learn by going from fizzbuzz to binary trees. How much more do you get by asking about cycles in linked lists? And so on…

Just for the record, I can't stand technical interviews, and I dislike them so much that I'm considerably less inclined to apply for and interview for new jobs because I feel that I've studied for my data structures and algorithms midterm one time too many. I just don't want to re-load merge sort into short term memory again.

However, in spite of all this, I'm still somewhat sympathetic to interviewers[1]. The truth is, if you really don't have a lot of direct evidence about a developer, you truly are at risk of hiring someone who can't code.

[1] My problem with silicon valley hiring practices isn't that they have a process that leads to a high false negative rate. They should do what they feel is best for their company. My problem is that they do this while complaining about a critical shortage of developers so severe that it endangers the entire tech economy.

Am I totally unfit for developing software?

If not, What is the correct answer that will prevent me from getting COMPLETELY EXPOSED (in your words) if you ask me this MVC question in an interview?

Every interviewer has their own pet question that the candidate is COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED if they don't know.

My short answer to "What is MVC?" is that it's a popular web development trend, but without much substance to back it up. Every MVC project that I've been supporting/maintaining was a nightmare, taking 3x-5x longer to get stuff done than what I consider reasonable.

MVC = Model-View-Controller. It's usually for web development. You structure your code in a way that separates the data logic (Model), the user presentation logic (View), and the glue that holds the bits together (Controller).

There are many popular MVC frameworks that let you churn out a lot of mediocre websites quickly (angular.js, Ruby on Rails, Zend, Django(Python), and many others). The MVC framework does a lot of routine coding for you, but it comes at a price. The code can become a nightmare to maintain, especially if you use the MVC framework incorrectly. If you do something outside what the MVC framework provides, it can become a handicap rather than a help. The MVC framework usually demands you write your whole application in its preferred style, such as spreading out your code in various directories with forced naming conventions. MVC frameworks tend to be poorly documented compared to the underlying language (For example, compare the zend documentation to php.net).

The point of it is two-fold: separation of concerns, and DRY. But the reason it so ugly on the web when it produced elegant code for GUIs is the reason that web controller schemes are not MVC.

Errm, it's a pattern often used for UI (CLI and GUI) programming that was first commercially introduced in Smalltalk-76 (in 1976). [This predates Windows and Mac by many years.]

MVC can be done -with varying degrees of difficulty- in any computer language. You don't even need a web development framework to implement it! ;-)

iOS/OS X seems to do real MVC, with lightweight reusable view objects managed by ready-made controller classes. The obvious benefits are minimal memory and streamlined data flow. You only ever make/use the view objects you really need, you can recycle them to save memory, and - in OS X especially - controller objects include useful ready-made convenience methods.

Web frameworks often seem to do something that looks like MVC if you squint and don't think too hard. But when you're forced to use separate languages for logic (js), markup (HTML), and view design (CSS), and handle separate client/server environments, and there's inevitable overlap between all of the above (jquery etc) because stuff doesn't "just work", and you probably have yet another layer as a DB driver, it gets very complicated very quickly - to no great benefit.

The web has become a snarly ball of warty epicycles. That's why native is so popular - you get one common language for logic, views, and data, with a clean-ish interface to a remote server if you need one.

When everything works together like that, you can think seriously about MVC.

When the core concerns are all over the place already, it's a mess before you even start.

Which is not to say you can't work with it and build cool stuff - more that you can't just airdrop in a design pattern from a different tradition without thinking really, really hard about what, why, how, and what happens a year from now.

Separation of concerns and DRY are both good. MVC doesn't succeed at either, except in idealized corner cases.

[1] A lot of widgets in Windows, for instance text fields, encapsulate the view (it's where the text is displayed), the model (which keeps the text in the control), and the controller (the widget handles the UI for entering text, catches and handles the mouse, etc.).

(In angular, when you edit data in the view, the model is immediately updated, which is why it's MVVM and not MVC.)

There's lots of ways to decompose a program, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. MVC is a particular decomposition that is useful for interactive applications. The components are named Model, View, and Controller. An example of an advantage of this decomposition is that you can apply a different user interface (e.g. a command line one) by exchanging the View, without needing to change the Model.

Other answers here have focused on MVC as it applies to web development. But MVC is from the 70s, predating the web by many years! If you look beyond the trend, you see ideas rooted in an effort to architect software well, and see MVC as just one design, one particular decomposition. The key idea is not MVC itself, but the principles behind it. Being able to place ideas into larger contexts shows mastery, in my view.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that the MVC example would be a good question to ask to a younger candidate. If you had been around during the early days of web development (i.e. CGI scripts based on Perl or raw PHP, or Java where all of your logic is crammed into a JSP page), then you could say all sorts of things about the shift toward MVC being the norm. However, if you came along after that shift, and every web framework you've ever seen has been some variation on MVC principles, then it's a bit like asking a fish to describe water.

Anyway, if you're just getting started in the field, and haven't had much interview experience yet, then try not to let it get to you. Interviewing involves a TON of rejection, and that never really stops. If interviews ever start feeling easy, then it means you're selling yourself short... and you should be interviewing for more senior positions with higher salaries.

To get started though, I would suggest simply doing a Google search on "programmer interview questions", or something more specific to your background (e.g. "java interview questions"). This is exactly what the majority of your lazy interviewers are doing to come up with their questions anyway. As you encounter questions that you can't answer, then look them up and read about it (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93cont...).

BigO, data structures and having a good idea how computers work, what matters for performance both from theoretical and practical perspective, matters infinitely more to us that knowing how to play object-oriented BS bingo or subversion usage patterns.

If you know what MVC stands for, you're know enough about OO patterns to me.

Not going to argue that we got it right way(tm), just wanted to give you another perspective.

1) You've got a code base large enough that they matter; 2) You wrote it initially without using something like MVC; 3) And then it grew into a ridiculous monstrosity, which you then cleaned up by breaking it into models, views, and controllers.

At that point, if it turns out well, you start to "know it in your heart" instead of just being a nebulous concept that you read in a blog/textbook/whatever somewhere.

It's good you don't ask for a definition. Even the inventor of MVC thinks it's rarely been applied as intended [1] (see forward by Trygve Reenskaug).

[1] http://downloads.nakedobjects.net/resources/Pawson%20thesis....

Short of quoting a single book's definition of them, word-by-word, you'll find hundreds of different definitions of those two terms online.

So, definitions are bad, rather ask for an "understanding" or "explanation" of the interviewee.

If you look at the answers, aside from a few that are really poorly phrased, they all fundamentally say the same thing.

If I were interviewing someone and asking them about polymorphism, I would expect a definition which shows understanding and perhaps an example which explains to me that they really do understand it in concrete terms. (I'd probably give them bonus points for mentioning what the Greek words mean, but only because someone who knows that is likely to be someone I'd enjoy working with.)

Inheritance is certainly a dicier subject. I'm not 100% sure I'd ask about either polymorphism or inheritance in an interview nowadays (though I certainly have in the past), but if I were asking about the latter, I'd probably phrase it in the specific context of a particular language - or perhaps request a comparison of how inheritance differs between two languages. I guess, really, I'd actually want a discussion about inheritance versus composition - but, having asked for just that in the past, it was quite surprising to me (at the time) how many people had literally no idea what the term "composition" meant (despite, I'm sure, using it on a daily basis).

I know what the Greek words mean, but it would never in a million years occur to me to mention it in an interview; I would have no way of knowing without being told that you would assign positive value to such.

My experience: exactly the opposite.

Your experience comes from matasano, a company where people get paid to be hack, a dream job for many techies, with offices in New York, Chicago, and Silicon Valley.

Is it surprising that your experience is exactly the opposite? I would imagine there's a huge self-selection factor at play here with regards to who applies to work for each company.

(None of this is to say Steve's company isn't awesome - I'm sure it is - just that recruiting is going to be much more difficult).

p.s. - I agree with you that tech interviews are terrible - I just don't think anyone has got it figured out yet and what worked or didn't work at you for you at matasano is not guaranteed to work or not work for the rest of the industry.

If you read Thomas's recent post on Matasano's hiring process [1], they were looking to funnel people in. Steve's process seems pretty clearly designed to filter people out.

Compare the idea of sending would-be candidates books to study and the idea of an interview process that COMPLETELY EXPOSES candidates. One is trying to bring people in, the other is trying to drive them out.

Somehow tech hiring has often become an adversarial process. It shouldn't be shocking to us that approach makes it hard to find good people.

[1] http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/

How can I know if an employer is worth 1-3 months of my free time until I meet my potential future coworkers? Demanding a candidate invest 1-3 months of free time before you meet them seems like an insult to me.

If your job uses a niche skill, why demand candidates be an expert already before you hire them?

I do have a problem with passing on candidates who were sold on our subspecialty, had an aptitude for it, but could not pass an interview on it "cold".

Are you hiring people who are brilliant, or people who are so desperate that they'll spend a couple months preparing for one interview?

Not your cup of tea? Totally fine. Not everyone is interested in doing security.

2. Package it, with all of the assets and utilities needed to get it running with "vagrant up".

3. Carve out some feature/features from the application, and replace them with stub functionality.

4. Deliver the vagrant app and a functional spec to candidates. Have them implement the missing feature.

5. Devise a scoring rubric (unit test coverage, lines of code, algorithms used, safe/unsafe APIs, performance, whatever). Mechanically evaluate candidate submissions.

6. (Optional) Devise a 15-20 minute on-site interview component to verify that the candidate actually did the work. We didn't bother with this, and multiplied the size of our team (NCC is the largest software security firm in North America) and had 100% retention. But it's a big concern for some people.

The reason is, of course, self-selection bias. On average, the people who applied for the tech college were just stronger students than the people who applied to the state college. This likely is because applicants to the tech college were more likely to be people whose primary goal was to peruse an academic discipline that interested them while the state school had a good number of students applying who wanted to party and attend football games. If you were to look at students who applied to BOTH schools, you would actually see a lower acceptance rate for the tech school than the state school.

I suspect that the same factor is at play here. I suspect that the average quality of a candidate who applies for a software security engineering position is much higher than the average quality of a candidate that applies for a enterprise software development position. The software security engineering position is an esoteric position that is more likely to attract applicants who are enthusiasts or at least very interested in the field. The enterprise software development position is more likely to attract anyone with a tech background looking to phone it in and collect a paycheck.

If this is true, while both Thomas and Steve have a difficult time hiring developers, they have a difficult time for fundamentally different reasons. Thomas is like the tech school - his difficulty is with getting candidates to apply. Steve is like the state school - his problem is with separating qualified candidates from "phone it in and collect a paycheck" candidates.

This is why I am skeptical of Thomas thinking he's got a much better way of hiring figured out. Maybe he does for companies that focus on security - judging by his Linkedin profile, he's only worked for companies focused on security. This is certainly valuable, but he has no idea what it is like for Steve.

By the way, I think many of us have seen this self-selection bias at play even within our own companies. Post a primarily Java job and a primarily Scala job and then try to tell me that the same principles apply for filling both positions.

Invariably, one of the top replies boils down to, "Hey! I'm a 20-something in the valley, and I see it completely different!".

Well, yeah.

"After a couple years of this I could tell which companies to worry about and which not to. The more of an IT flavor the job descriptions had, the less dangerous the company was. The safest kind were the ones that wanted Oracle experience. You never had to worry about those. You were also safe if they said they wanted C++ or Java developers. If they wanted Perl or Python programmers, that would be a bit frightening-- that's starting to sound like a company where the technical side, at least, is run by real hackers. If I had ever seen a job posting looking for Lisp hackers, I would have been really worried."

I'm not sure if what you're saying isn't true, or if I'm just biased and not able to see Atlanta from an outsider's perspective.

I left because I wanted to live in a big city, not in suburbia. Atlanta has some of the plusses of a city, but they're relatively limited compared to LA, SF, NY, DC. It's more a collection of suburbs than a city.

If suburban life is what you want, Atlanta is fine for that. Honestly, most of Silicon Valley is suburbs, outside of SF itself. And they aren't as appealing as Atlanta suburbs, with many more trees and a lot more space. If that's what someone wants, Atlanta is a better choice than pretty much anywhere in California.

One of the best things about California, particularly in LA and the Bay Area, is that there are more people living their lives according to their own unique desires than anywhere else I've ever been. Having "odd" choices about your lifestyle or having crazy dreams and aspirations is the norm here, and that's something I want around me. It's a plus for me to be surrounded by that kind of thing. There's some of that in Atlanta, but it's more localized to certain areas. Here it's everywhere, just how things are.

But I do get your point about "odd" lifestyles. We're certainly getting weirder here, but I don't think it can yet compare to what you see in NYC or the Bay Area. Still, there's a lot to like here, and cost of living alone is a great argument for Atlanta.

Atlanta is by far the technology hub of the southeastern United States. It has no competition to the west until you reach Houston (and even that is mostly specific to the energy industry). It faces only mild competition from the Research Triangle region of North Carolina, and beyond that it's a technology DMZ all the way to Chicago or the northeast.

It's home to Georgia Tech, perennially one of the top 5 engineering schools in the nation, and pumps out thousands of new programmers per year in addition to the thousands who migrate here. It has a highly diverse business base, not tied to any one predominant industry, and its Buckhead and Midtown districts have one of the most thriving startup scenes that you'll find outside of SV or NY.

Of course, if a Georgia Tech grad is in the uppermost percentiles, then odds are he or she would be enticed by Google, or a west coast startup. I'm certainly not saying that Atlanta is in the same league as San Francisco, or even New York (at least not its finance/quant opportunities). But my earlier point was that these environments are extreme outliers, and virtually no other city is comparable to that either.

I think what some of the replies to your post are forgetting is there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. The questions are about gauging the experience of the candidate so you can make an appropriate offer if you wanted to hire them. It's probably not a huge deal if you couldn't describe MVC but you gave an in-depth answer to the OOP question for example. It is a problem however if several questions reveal there are major holes in your knowledge and experience though.

I wonder how the success rate would change if you defined "model," "view" and "controller," and asked why developers might choose to organize projects in such a way.

My guess is that most working developers would get the concept right away and might even be able to relate it to other named models we've seen--we might just all exist in a web bubble where MVC is trendy because of the levels of abstraction that exist in our common toolsets.

Even Cobol's ancient "divisions" seem to have a similar organizational structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Features) and so, I'm sure, did a lot of old-school, green screen terminal apps.

Our computers are generally fast enough and our tools good enough for what we're asking them to do that we can often just define data models and user views fairly abstractly--index this, make that an input box rounded corners and indented text--and that we can often avoid delving into the low-level details of how data's stored or pixels laid out on the screen. I'm sure it would be possible to describe an operating system, or a video game engine, or a DBMS in terms of which sections of code model data, handle the meat-and-potatoes "business logic" and communicate with the outside world, but you'd probably need deeper layers of abstraction to actually plan how code would be organized.

We also have enough fast memory that we can basically pass data from one level to another without issue and don't have to deal with abstraction-breaking optimizations like processing data while a disk head or spinning drum is in the right place or before an old video game system's tiny RAM chip is full.

But I think programmers who worked with those kinds of systems could quickly jump into web and app development, and if they couldn't, it's probably not because they don't know what MVC stands for (although it's possible it's a useful proxy).

"Why do we keep doing whiteboard interviews, even though they tell us little about how good the applicant is at actual software development?"

Let me guess, they work for a "big box software factory/consultancy".

They don't program, they just click buttons on Eclipse.

That should be your filter.

I suspect that it is very likely that this process ends up excluding very high-level producers.

Which implies, almost by definition, that they will become much better at the process over time and eventually become very good at gaming it, therefore making it even less reliable.

and i agree with you that threshold competence in the general applicant pool is so low that some form of technical screening is absolutely essential. My problem is how best to do it. For one thing, it has taken me far too long to recognize that the pool of interview questions and plausible answers are widely available and apparently studied by many applicants prior to technical onsite interviews. Their answers are quickly given and so polished that we bring them on, then fairly soon find that answers to those interview questions is pretty much all they know.