I recently read the following article[^] with interest. If you are asked a question in an interview and give an unexpected (but correct) answer, should this be seen as a positive or a negative?
In the article, the interviewer seems to mark the candidate down for giving an answer that is different to the one they expected. Whilst I accept that the expected answer in this particular case may be the one that conforms to better design practices and use of the language, the answer nonetheless still solves the problem, and this surely is the point.
The candidate is asked to solve a problem, for which there is no seemingly straight-forward solution. The candidate therefore proposes an alternative solution. In software, you cannot always just re-design the software to implement a new feature. Having the time will also likely be a luxury you don't have. Sometimes, just sometimes, to get the ball past the post, you need to take a different approach, however unpalatable that approach may be.
As long as the candidate made it abundantly clear that whilst the approach they have described is a quick fix and not the preferred approach (and would probably require technical debt at a later date), then giving an unorthodox answer shows both creativity and a deeper understanding of the language than the candidate who simply says it cannot be done.
I would prefer the candidate who solves problems than those who don't.
In the article, the interviewer seems to mark the candidate down for giving an answer that is different to the one they expected. Whilst I accept that the expected answer in this particular case may be the one that conforms to better design practices and use of the language, the answer nonetheless still solves the problem, and this surely is the point.
The candidate is asked to solve a problem, for which there is no seemingly straight-forward solution. The candidate therefore proposes an alternative solution. In software, you cannot always just re-design the software to implement a new feature. Having the time will also likely be a luxury you don't have. Sometimes, just sometimes, to get the ball past the post, you need to take a different approach, however unpalatable that approach may be.
As long as the candidate made it abundantly clear that whilst the approach they have described is a quick fix and not the preferred approach (and would probably require technical debt at a later date), then giving an unorthodox answer shows both creativity and a deeper understanding of the language than the candidate who simply says it cannot be done.
I would prefer the candidate who solves problems than those who don't.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter