> I don't care if you're clever enough to answer that;
Bingo.
To me, this is the kicker statement for the industry. Solving fake problems like nickel-in-a-blender is for the clever. But I sure as hell don't want clever code solutions; I want rock-solid, reliable, fundamental solutions.
Anyone who feels these questions are an indicator of programmatic success is measuring the wrong things.
To be fair, the "nickel in a blender" type of problems have been actively banned from engineering interview at Google for many years. That doesn't mean that there aren't a few holdouts that still use them, but there is an active effort to eliminate them.
I sit on an engineering hiring committee and I can't really think of the last time I saw one of the ridiculous puzzle questions show up in an engineering interview. The WSJ article was pretty ridiculous.
Wasn't implying these to be solely a Google issue, but rather something that a material number of firms in the tech industry like to follow in interviewing.
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the WSJ article you've referenced. Link?
Bingo.
To me, this is the kicker statement for the industry. Solving fake problems like nickel-in-a-blender is for the clever. But I sure as hell don't want clever code solutions; I want rock-solid, reliable, fundamental solutions.
Anyone who feels these questions are an indicator of programmatic success is measuring the wrong things.