Interviews for developers, by developers
summary
Claim: whiteboard algorithm interviews filter out competent engineers and amplify bias. Evidence: a North Carolina State/Microsoft study shows 63% vs 38% pass rates for private vs public interviews and reports 100% vs 0% for women in that small sample. Data from interviewing.io shows high score variance—only ~25% of candidates get consistent scores, so single-shot screens are unreliable. Alternatives tested include pair programming in CoderPad on tiny repos, short take-homes with rubrics, and code-review exercises; these reveal debugging, reading, and collaboration skills more directly.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (11)
- 0:00Introduction
- 1:08Why interview processes frustrate companies
- 3:14LeetCode-style interview costs
- 4:38Industry dissatisfaction with interviews
- 8:35Algorithmic interview reliability
- 13:54Algorithmic interviews and bias
- 16:42Unrealistic time demands
- 18:07Alternatives to LeetCode
- 20:37Assessing technical skills
- 21:43Candidate interview options
- 22:27Hiring competitive advantage
related talks
49mFinding potential in your interview processes
46mIncreasing Effectiveness As A Technical Candidate/Interviewer
51mEngineering the Technical Interview
25mWhy Interviewing is Terrible
33mHiring Developers, with Science!
01h 03mWhy Technical Engineering Interviews Are Broken and How to Actually Make Them Better
25mHow to Not Suck at Technical Interviews
36mCracking the hiring process