People who conduct technical interview, how common it is for you to see people bombed the interview??

Bombed as in awful? Or awesome?

@asgs awful. like totally blank and cannot answer the question

Unless we're using a recruitment agency that actually talks to them to filter out the muppets, I'd say about 90% are utterly incapable of solving problems and don't seem to understand why anyone would want to.

@asgs

You mean this post is not about terrorists?

@aryzor

I had a tooth infection at my last technical interview. My head was blank, it was fun.

@Jabb03 When is the last time you've seen an actual terrorist and not US government's media lies or agents?

it is kind of 50-50 in my experience. Most are able to talk a few things about the stuff they put in their CV. Around half of the candidates can answer basic questions without any lack of clarity. Around 20% can go beyond and probably less than 5% look fully qualified for the job opening

lmao every single time. my problem is they're either so fucking stupid that my cat will probably do better, or so fucking smart that they're obviously overqualified af. Shakespeares and Newtons of software engineering make bad full stack devs. To be involved and motivated, they should be writing compilers and operating systems.

Unless you know exactly what to say during each interview and you know its structure and expectations, do's and don't, you are realistically likely to fail between 500 and 1500 interviews.

I've interviewed a dozen people in my life. I'd say 6 bombed it, 4 were meh, and 2 were capable of basic tasks

I flopped many interviews because I was controlling my anger to not smack the interviewer in the back of the head and force them to be smarter and actually THINK before they ask a problematic question. Some also because I noticed there was no way I'd work with them due to their red flags but I'm too polite to walk out with my middle fingers raised.

Welp I'm pretty bad at interviews myself so I tend to be pretty lax.

- can they reason through an problem? even if they land on the wrong answer them being able to activate neurons is a good sign

- Can they somewhat communicate?

- Are they sociable enough where I don't have to drag em to HR

- are they eager/willing to learn?

- Is there ego not an massive balloon.

Unless we are really looking for an specific skillset in a time crunch I'm already willing to entertain someone who checks off above. Tech stacks fade and go, while there are plenty of kernels of truth that stay I'd rather hire someone unskilled but with their mind and heart in the right place, as long as they are willing to learn.

Now granted most of my interviews were with interns, juniors and mediors, so that kind of skews what you can expect.

I don't know if I've ever seen anyone bomb an interview but I'm quite empathetic. people get nervous and anxious and that makes them mess up. nervousness was not as bad with me cuz I could make people feel comfortable enough not to bomb I guess

but anxiety is bad because it makes people locked up and forget knowledge they already knew. I worked around the problem by giving them something simple and letting them work on their own pace

but when I interview at places what I see most often is people choose others on the basis of in-group clique things and not their skills. skills never comes up but just serves as an excuse. you're just meant to mimic the culture and vibe at the company and they don't care about your abilities. they only begin to care about your abilities when they've already decided "no" based on you being different, and then they need to put you through the ringer to justify to themselves that you suck

so just chillax and you'll be good, I guess