Another tech interview thread. For the side that supports these types of interviews, I've never gotten a good answer to a simple question: in the year 2020, why are we expecting people to write compilable code on a whiteboard? It's just stupid at this point. Even a laptop that boots into some micro linux distro and has nothing but nano open would be better. Or just a fresh install windows laptop with nothing but notepad.exe open. Or a chromebook that is open to a HTML page that has nothing but a textarea element.
I'm not including a compiler or having build tools or an IDE. Just a basic simple text editing area that allows the basic functions of typing in text and editing it.
I'm against these leetcode interviews. But if you did nothing else but change this one thing, just stop expecting people to write code on a whiteboard or paper/pencil and allow them to write code the way it's actually done (a computing device with a keyboard and text edit area), that would be such a huge improvement. Writing code on a whiteboard or paper doesn't test anything. Think about how limited it is and how different it is (for example, you can't just press an up arrow and add a newline, have to find an eraser and start over).
It's yet another useless skill to learn just for interviews (writing compilable code on a whiteboard/paper) which also encourages rote memorization (because you have to get it right on the first try since editing the text is so painful and difficult).
I hope people start pushing back on this. The reaction should be, wow you care so little about your interview process that you can't get a $200 chromebook in here?
As somebody that gives both phone interviews with a shared typing environment and whiteboard interviews, there are some problems I can only use with a whiteboard, but no problems that I can only use with a typing environment. In particular, whiteboards are significantly better at letting candidates describe what they're thinking about the structure of a problem before (or instead of) actually writing correct syntax. When someone is sitting in front of a computer, they have a tendency to either jump straight into coding or try to describe their thoughts in a giant block of comments, neither of which is very productive.
Maybe it's just our phone interviews that allow us to focus on higher-level concepts in person, but I've really never found a candidate who did poorly on a whiteboard but seems like they would have done well on a computer. If anything, it's the inverse where candidates jump straight into code, to their own detriment, when placed in front of a keyboard.
The trouble with whiteboards are that some people think nonlinearly. If I'm writing an algorithm, I may write the "middle" first. On a whiteboard, this means I have to guess how much blank space I need to leave in various parts of my code so I have room to fill it later. I almost always guess wrong. On a computer, this is not a problem.
Now while you may be aware of this and not give the candidate a hard time for not leaving enough space, I read a Medium post once written by a Google employee with tips on doing well on the interview. He explicitly highlighted this problem, and literally encouraged candidates to learn to think and write linearly and not leave these kinds of blank spaces.
As somebody who has sadly had to make hundreds of candidates write on a whiteboard, here are problems I’ve run into getting the candidate a laptop:
* IT just fails: they’re unwilling to supply it, there aren’t enough, the current laptops on hand are junk, or the default password is wrong. These all happen with HR buy-in and funding.
* Recruiting just fails: they “have to move the candidate fast because of a competing offer,” they tried to work with IT but IT blocked them, they got laptops themself using their own budget but then ran out.
* I failed: I didn’t make time to prepare a non-whiteboard question, I didn’t tell my manager in each and every 1:1 that candidate experience sucks, I had three laptops and I forgot to bring my personal spare to the interview.
In general the core problem is there is zero incentive for hiring managers to do anything but shotgun candidate pools like they do today. There’s also no feedback loop to evaluators to help them improve. False negatives are completely tolerated despite there being a huge gap between CS jobs demand and CS graduate supply.
These are not good reasons and again shows that the company really doesn't care. IT gives a bad laptop? That's fine it doesn't have to be good, it just needs a text editor open. Get a USB drive with a linux distro and boot to it and open nano. Or bring your laptop and stick the USB drive linux distro in there and let them use it. Again there is zero excuse for a company to not have a laptop ready for an onsite interview.
All these companies expect you to write code using a site like hackerrank during the phone screen. And yet they can't have a chromebook open to the exact same site during the onsite? If that's too much, they can't even get a cheap laptop, stick in a USB drive linux distro, open nano and give that during the onsite?
I totally agree: the excuses are poor and companies don’t care. There isn’t much candidates can do. Hiring managers need to fundamentally change how they approach hiring.
Whiteboarding can fail. The pens might be dry. The room might be double-booked. The interviewer might be late or unavailable. Any interview setup can fail.
> in the year 2020, why are we expecting people to write compilable code on a whiteboard
I think this is the bad assumption that's causing your confusion. Maybe this happens, but I think it's very uncommon.
The point of using whiteboards is to focus more on algorithms, data structures, and problem solving, not just spitting out code. If you make the applicant write actual code it limits the scope of the questions that can be asked.
So, it's actually beneficial that whiteboards aren't good for writing compilable code, because that's not what you want the applicant to do.
Yeah. From the interviewer's standpoint, there is no added benefit of having the candidate write code on a whiteboard, as opposed to a computer.
However, a whiteboard certainly can be easier to write anything that is not code on. Like for instance if the candidate chooses to walk the interviewer through a high-level approach, including a graph topology, before actually starting to code.
I know Google started letting candidates choose between laptop and whiteboard a few years back. I suspect others alos have.
I'm not including a compiler or having build tools or an IDE. Just a basic simple text editing area that allows the basic functions of typing in text and editing it.
I'm against these leetcode interviews. But if you did nothing else but change this one thing, just stop expecting people to write code on a whiteboard or paper/pencil and allow them to write code the way it's actually done (a computing device with a keyboard and text edit area), that would be such a huge improvement. Writing code on a whiteboard or paper doesn't test anything. Think about how limited it is and how different it is (for example, you can't just press an up arrow and add a newline, have to find an eraser and start over).
It's yet another useless skill to learn just for interviews (writing compilable code on a whiteboard/paper) which also encourages rote memorization (because you have to get it right on the first try since editing the text is so painful and difficult).
I hope people start pushing back on this. The reaction should be, wow you care so little about your interview process that you can't get a $200 chromebook in here?