Deep data dives

We looked at how a thousand college students performed in technical interviews to see if where they went to school mattered. It didn’t.

By / February 22, 2021

interviewing.io is a platform where engineers practice technical interviewing anonymously. If things go well, they can unlock the ability to participate in real, still anonymous, interviews with top companies like Twitch, Lyft and more. Earlier this year, we launched an offering specifically for university students, with the intent of helping level the playing field right at the start of people’s careers. The sad truth is that with the state of college recruiting today, if you don’t attend one of very few top schools, your chances of interacting with companies on campus are slim. It’s not fair, and it sucks, but university recruiting is still dominated by career fairs. Companies pragmatically choose to visit the same …

We looked at how a thousand college students performed in technical interviews to see if where they went to school mattered. It didn’t. Read more »

What do the best interviewers have in common? We looked at thousands of real interviews to find out.

By / March 16, 2021

At interviewing.io, we’ve analyzed and written at some depth about what makes for a good interview from the perspective of an interviewee. However, despite the inherent power imbalance, interviewing is a two-way street. I wrote a while ago about how, in this market, recruiting isn’t about vetting as much as it is about selling, and not engaging candidates in the course of talking to them for an hour is a woefully missed opportunity. But, just like solving interview questions is a learned skill that takes time and practice, so, too, is the other side of the table. Being a good interviewer takes time and effort and a fundamental willingness to get out of autopilot and …

What do the best interviewers have in common? We looked at thousands of real interviews to find out. Read more »

We analyzed thousands of technical interviews on everything from language to code style. Here’s what we found.

By / November 23, 2022

Note: Though I wrote most of the words in this post, the legendary Dave Holtz did the heavy lifting on the data side. See more of his work on his blog. If you’re reading this post, there’s a decent chance that you’re about to re-enter the crazy and scary world of technical interviewing. Maybe you’re a college student or fresh grad who is going through the interviewing process for the first time. Maybe you’re an experienced software engineer who hasn’t even thought about interviews for a few years. Either way, the first step in the interviewing process is usually to read a bunch of online interview guides (especially if they’re written by companies you’re interested …

We analyzed thousands of technical interviews on everything from language to code style. Here’s what we found. Read more »

LinkedIn endorsements are dumb. Here’s the data.

By / January 14, 2021

If you’re an engineer who’s been endorsed on LinkedIn for any number of languages/frameworks/skills, you’ve probably noticed that something isn’t quite right. Maybe they’re frameworks you’ve never touched or languages you haven’t used since freshman year of college. No matter the specifics, you’re probably at least a bit wary of the value of the LinkedIn endorsements feature. The internets, too, don’t disappoint in enumerating some absurd potential endorsements or in bemoaning the lack of relevance of said endorsements, even when they’re given in earnest. Having a gut feeling for this is one thing, but we were curious about whether we could actually come up with some numbers that showed how useless endorsements can be, and …

LinkedIn endorsements are dumb. Here’s the data. Read more »

Lessons from 3,000 technical interviews… or how what you do after graduation matters way more than where you went to school

By / January 16, 2021

The first blog post I published that got any real attention was called “Lessons from a year’s worth of hiring data“. It was my attempt to understand what attributes of someone’s resume actually mattered for getting a software engineering job. Surprisingly, as it turned out, where someone went to school didn’t matter at all, and by far and away, the strongest signal came from the number of typos and grammatical errors on their resume. Since then, I’ve discovered (and written about) how useless resumes are, but ever since writing that first post, I’ve been itching to do something similar with interviewing.io’s data. For context, interviewing.io is a platform where people can practice technical interviewing anonymously …

Lessons from 3,000 technical interviews… or how what you do after graduation matters way more than where you went to school Read more »

After a lot more data, technical interview performance really is kind of arbitrary.

By / January 20, 2021

interviewing.io is a platform where people can practice technical interviewing anonymously, and if things go well, get jobs at top companies in the process. We started it because resumes suck and because we believe that anyone, regardless of how they look on paper, should have the opportunity to prove their mettle. In February of 2016, we published a post about how people’s technical interview performance, from interview to interview, seemed quite volatile. At the time, we just had a few hundred interviews to draw on, so as you can imagine, we were quite eager to rerun the numbers with the advent of more data. After drawing on over a thousand interviews, the numbers hold up. In …

After a lot more data, technical interview performance really is kind of arbitrary. Read more »

People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance. Here’s the data.

By / January 14, 2021

interviewing.io is a platform where people can practice technical interviewing anonymously, and if things go well, get jobs at top companies in the process. We started it because resumes suck and because we believe that anyone, regardless of how they look on paper, should have the opportunity to prove their mettle. At the end of 2015, we published a post about how people are terrible at gauging their own interview performance. At the time, we just had a few hundred interviews to draw on, so as you can imagine, we were quite eager to rerun the numbers with the advent of more data. After drawing on roughly one thousand interviews, we were surprised to find that …

People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance. Here’s the data. Read more »