A reader pointed us to this interesting slashdot discussion about technical interviews.  The crux of the situation is that an experienced programmer interviewed at a large company where he was asked a number of “sophomoric” questions.  It appears, based on my limited knowledge of the situation*, he felt that he was interviewing with less experienced developers and being asked questions far below his aptitude.  In addition to which, he felt that some of the interviewers logic and answers to the questions were just plain wrong.  He’s curious about how employers make sure they aren’t selecting against experience and what someone should have done in his situation.  

There were a few clear lines of responses ranging from; “Walk away, the company clearly isn’t up to your level”, to “We have to ask these basic questions because it weeds out people that can’t code or problem solve”, to “get over yourself, you sound like you have an inflated ego”.  

I think this conversation is really relevant and interesting for both jobseekers and employers.  Just reading through the comments gives a good impression of what interviewers are looking for technically and professionally from a candidate.  For employers, it provides a good “things that make you go hmmm” moment where you should question your interview practices and evaluate if what you are doing is winning candidates or turning them, and potentially others, away. 

From someone who has been part of the technical recruiting process, I have a couple of general observations and questions about the situation.

• For someone with this many years of experience, I wonder if he was actually being evaluated for the appropriate position.  I don’t think every 20-year industry vet needs to be a people manager, but I would expect a high degree of technical competence and for them to be interviewed for a significant technical role within the company.  A good recruiter would have slotted this candidate for the right position and ensured he was meeting with people who could assess his technical competence at any level.  Good interviewers would have been able to adjust their questions on the fly to accommodate for someone with more experience and evaluate their skills, despite the interviewer’s age.
  
  
• Regardless of the questions’ correctness, all employers must have some baseline questions they ask every potential developer candidate to establish their programming skills at some level.  I don’t necessarily have any objections to this method of interviewing.  My thought is that if you are truly an experienced programmer this should be an easy problem for you to solve in a simple and elegant manner and then move on.  Again, good interviewers should then be able to adjust the level of questions they are asking at this point.  However, if the interviewee isn’t demonstrating the basic skill to the interviewer in a way they understand, then they may continue to ask basic questions until they establish your skill level.  
  
  
• In a situation like this, it’s hard to ignore the underlying question of ageism (in this case seemingly preferring a younger person over an older one); especially in a rapidly changing industry such as software development.  I guess the thing that I question, and I am sure this will get me in trouble, is whether or not it is ageism to select for candidates that are up to date on current programming practices and methodologies?  Further, is it ageism to ask basic questions of an experienced programmer?  I am pretty sure that’s not what’s happening here.  It appears, whether or not their questions were right, that they were seeking to find the best person based on their technical skills.  I don’t think it’s ageism to expect an experienced person to answer basic questions or provide optimal solutions within current programming principles.
  
  
• At the same time I got the sense from the person interviewing there may have been some judging of the interviewers’ age on his part, particularly since he makes a point to indicate that he was interviewing with twentysomethings.  Again, without knowing the specific position this person was interviewing for, maybe he assumed that he was going to be mentoring these people while the interviewers assumed they were to evaluate him as a peer? It’s tough say; however, I got the sense that the interviewee expected his 20 years of experience would carry some weight with the interviewers.  Based on my experience working at a big software company, I can truly say that age – and especially years of external experience - does not necessarily correlate with rank or position within the company.  It’s difficult to predict an engineer’s seniority based on age alone, and I would not necessarily assume these engineers were junior employees.
  
  
• Is there the possibility that this person was actually not given the position for other reasons besides “not technical enough”?  I think many employers fail to provide feedback on “soft skills” to candidates because it’s difficult.  Would you rather reject someone because they couldn’t code the problem correctly or tell them that they lacked the communication skills you needed?  Both can be refuted, but one seems more empirically based then the other.  I don’t agree with this practice, but many employers are bound by their legal department in how they communicate that someone didn’t get the job. 

Aside from my impressions, this is a really great conversation to follow.  Have any of you been on either side of this experience?  If so, what advice would you offer your peers?

*I read through most, but not all the comments plus I am not technical, so if I am missing a subtle nuance here please educate me.