Interviewing candidates 22

[slickdeals]

I am seeking feedback on how some of your firms conduct interviews for engineers in the 0-3 years of experience. More specifically, are your interviews strictly non-technical in nature or a combination of non-technical with a 10-20 question test to check their technical abilities.

I would like to introduce a technical aspect to the interview, nothing too fancy with higher level math or fancy engineering, but checking for common sense and foundational principles key to succeeding in our business.

Thanks for contributing!

 

[Boiler106]

we would give moment diagrams in interviews to kids out of school for years until one candidate did the best out of anyone we ever had and turned out to be one of our least technically proficient engineers we came across. we also noticed that we never considered their performance on the quiz when we discussed who we should hire.

we, of course, dropped the technical interview after that.

 

[SwinnyGG]

In the ME world, I'd say technical testing during interviews is relatively common. In my experience (mostly in the context of robotics and industrial equipment design) they are not all that useful. Lot of candidates exist who did very well in school and can answer any 'homework problem' you throw at them with a reasonable level of competency, but when presented with an open-ended real world 'go design this thing' situation, seem incapable of anything resembling success.

When I first made it into a position where I had influence over the department approach to interviewing, I lobbied very hard that this portion of our interviews for technical jobs be removed, and provided several examples (names everyone in the room knew who had crushed their interview and turned out to be useless) as support for my argument. Took a long time for anyone to listen but they did eventually.

My very first boss once told me his theory that some people have a form of "structural vision" right out the gate and some simply do not. And most who do not never develop it

Agree strongly with this. I think there's a 'path of thought' for lack of a better term that just exists in some brains and not in others. If it's not there, there's nothing that can be done.

In my minds this innate thing is what provides someone the ability to look at a design and sus out very quickly what things they need to actually calc out, and what things can be left as 'good enough'. In the robotics/equipment context we aren't calculating the capacity or loads of every single connection or component, so a good sense of what needs attention and what can be left alone is very, very important.

 

[KootK]

we would give moment diagrams in interviews to kids out of school for years until one candidate did the best out of anyone we ever had and turned out to be one of our least technically proficient engineers we came across.

That strikes me as irrational. Consider:

1) Does the set of all technically proficient structural engineers include a few who can draw a decent moment diagram? Absolutely.

2) Does the set of all technically proficient structural engineers include mostly folks who can draw a decent moment diagram? Surely.

A single data point tells you nothing.

 

[Luceid]

Oh another interview I had was great too - rather than asking arbitrary questions about any structure - they asked me to bring in a project. I brought in my concrete design project - and they asked me to draw moment diagrams for some of the elements in that project. They asked questions about how the shear/moment diagrams would change if we shifted a column over this way - or made these changes to the lateral system (to induce torsion).

It was comfortable to think about the questions in the context of something I had already worked on - and gave me a good sense of the interviewer's technical background since they could develop interesting engineering theoreticals based on a project they hadn't seen before.

 

[ALK2415]

you could always use AI Help :-

I found a few resources that list common interview questions for civil engineers. Here are some of the topics that are commonly covered in interviews for young civil engineers:

General questions: These questions are designed to get to know the candidate better and assess their personality, interests, and career goals. Some examples of general questions include:

What inspired you to become a civil engineer?
What do you consider to be your greatest strength as a civil engineer?
Where do you see yourself in five years?
Technical questions: These questions are designed to assess the candidate’s technical knowledge and skills. Some examples of technical questions include:

What is your experience with developing environmental impact reports?
What is the key to successful urban planning?
What is your favorite construction technique?
Behavioral questions: These questions are designed to assess the candidate’s behavior and decision-making skills in different situations. Some examples of behavioral questions include:

Can you describe a challenging project you have worked on and how you overcame any difficulties?
Can you discuss a time when you had to make a difficult decision in your work as a civil engineer?

also here are the major subjects that you should include in your questions:
-Mechanics
-Strength of materials
-theory of structures
-steel and concrete design
-foundation design
-highways and traffic engineering
-hydraulic structures
-survey engineering
- fluid & hydrology engineering
.. etc
and of course new techniques like BIM capabilities

 

[KootK]

If it's not there, there's nothing that can be done.

That is something that I've always been curious about. I often get asked for technical mentoring and, in the worst of cases, my advice is simply "I don't care if you have a PhD. Get yourself a copy of RC Hibbeler's Statics text and read it front to back".

The thing is, nobody ever actually does that. So I don't know if it would work.

And I get that nobody does it because I know that I would struggle to do it myself.

My undergrad transcript indicates a shameful C- in concrete design which many folks find bizarre / humorous these days. A rebound situation resulted in my having a bedmate that semester that was wildly out of my league. I wasn't getting much sleep and I sure wasn't wasting a lot of time thinking about STM models.

When I was jettisoned out into the real world, I had to design and execute my own program of concrete self education. That wound up being more effective than any formal program of education could ever be but it was also a very tough slog. I'm not sure that I could even pull that off nowadays given my current level of work and family responsibilities.

So I get. This is the same reason that, to this day, I'm still a little shaky on the significance of Mohr's circle. I never got around to circling back to that. And there seemed to be no practical need to. I'm sure that it's all very interesting.

 

[WARose]

Something else that occurred to me today: be careful how hard you put anyone through the wringer. I use to work at a place where they brought in entry level people and basically treated them like dirt in the interview process (and that included the quiz show talked about in this thread). Well guess what? These people turned us down....and later some became crackerjack engineers who wanted nothing to do with us down the line (when we needed help). I know that for a fact because one of 'em told the department manager that.....and added (with lots of salty language) he'd be glad to tell him to his face if he'd like.

So whatever you do.....be polite about it.

 

[RattlinBog]

Something else that occurred to me today: be careful how hard you put anyone through the wringer. .... These people turned us down....and later some became crackerjack engineers who wanted nothing to do with us down the line (when we needed help).

Absolutely agree on this. Structural engineering is a small world as it is. What comes around goes around. I'll add that there's a very likely chance that two years of covid times messed up a lot of recent students' education. I can speak from some experience because I've been pursuing an M.S. civil engineering degree the last few years while working full time. The couple years of covid/lockdown were a bit dicey for me as a part-time student; I can't imagine full time B.S. students had any easier time navigating the mess. My university has also lost some long-standing structural professors and gained a handful of brand new ones that are heavy into research land but not much industry experience. I imagine this is happening nation/world-wide.

I don't think it hurts to test some level of basic knowledge, but I wouldn't be ruthless about it. I'd put more effort into developing a plan on how to guide and mentor these new engineers so they don't get lost in the shuffle and end up leaving out of frustration.

OP, I think a lot depends on how big of a pool of candidates your area offers, too. Sure, remote work is a reality now, but for now I'm assuming you're hiring locally... Speaking for myself, structural engineers are far and few between in my local area. I'm on the owner side now after leaving consulting, and I've had to work at two different plants for almost two years now because we can't find anyone to apply at the sister plant.

 

[milkshakelake]

The technical part is necessary. I have like 10 questions from beginner to advanced. Only one person in history aced all of them, and it turned out he knew jack about how to operate a computer and we had to fire him after 2 weeks. So we added a computer part as well. Then there's the most important part: the personality quiz, with tricky questions. The questions are designed to appear normal, but intended to get to the heart of someone's soul.

For example, "Why do you want this job?" Most candidates would talk about their own career aspirations. But a few can see past the trickery and they'd answer with some variation of "To make lots of money for you." That means they understand the basic employee-employer contract, that they have to produce at least 2-3 times their salary to break even and more than that to be valuable. They're the ones that understand that they're working for us, not the other way around. The answer to that one question won't make or break someone's interview, but we have several of those questions.

 

[Brad805]

"Why do you want this job?" In todays world I expect the real answer to that is, to pay my mortgage, rent or whatever it may be. I've had 2 jobs in my 25yr engineering career. I bet a modern young engineer could have 5 by the time they are 40. Many will wax poetically about this, but is is drivel in many cases.

 

[milkshakelake]

@Brad805 True, but answering truthfully in the way you said will show: a) They're very honest, b) They wouldn't be suited for client communication because of said honesty.
Edit: Maybe honest isn't the right word, because honesty is good. More like...untactful.

 

[WARose]

I bet a modern young engineer could have 5 [different jobs] by the time they are 40.

I had something like 8 or 9 by that point. But I worked contract for quite a while early on in my career. I've also been at some of the same places over and over. (There is one company in town I've worked for 4 different times.)

 

[lexpatrie]

This reply may have a tone problem, I mean, it PROBABLY has a tone problem. Sorry.

If I weren't a sole proprietor, (which I am), I'd be more interested in finding someone with the right attitude than somebody with excellent technical skills who had no interest in learning. A compelling transcript and high grades may not translate into what you want.

Knowledge I can transfer, but the student must be willing to learn. It's not a popularity contest, don't take it that way, and someone who's obsequious isn't going to fly either. I know nobody wants to "waste time" holding somebody's hand through the process, but I'm going to point at the roughly forty year cycle of significant bridge design failures.... there's a reason for this. We are expected to be in responsible charge and provide direct supervision (to use the buzzwords from the statutes), think of it like a car repair shop, once they know how to fill the tires, check the fluids, they learn more skilled tasks, oil changes, and until then, you have to provide what they need and clear direction how to proceed. Pass me the wrench. Don't just plop someone in front of a computer with a set of half-done ill-advised architectural plans the architect hasn't even looked at yet, and let them run for forty hours before you check back.

Be upfront about salary and benefits. If you're too cheap, they won't apply and you'll figure it out. Nobody does this and it wastes YOUR time as well as theirs. Get rid of that Applicant Tracking System (I'm looking at you, larger corporations), they are garbage. Admit it. Move on. YOU want to see the resumes, not some HR trainee.

You can always go with the classic "tell me about a time you made a mistake and how you handled it." And I would approach it as a conversation, more than an interview. You are trying to learn about the candidate, but they want to know about who they might be working for. I had a guy at Arcadis once describe the workplace as "not a spa, not a sweatshop", I though that sounded about right.

It's not always about their personality, sometimes it's about your personality.

Any question you ask you should be able to answer if they ask it back. When was a time you made a mistake and how did you handle it? To me, (as a candidate) the two red flags that sent me fleeing was a) blaming me for being late (It was a two hour drive, no cell phones, and I got behind a tractor on the way to Fort Wayne), get a life. I called when there was a phone booth. b) the "manager" leading the department with zero technical background, a literal MBA. c) somewhere in an interview the guy conceded that "nobody really knew how the software worked, we just use it" (a manufacturer). That's a Microsoft answer, and it's not acceptable. I don't work that way. d) "We don't normally hire EITs" (Why am I here, then? BYE. What happens if every company works that way?)

Do not do a second, third, fourth, or fifth round of interviews. If you can't make a decision after one interview, it's YOU. Do not do a "phone screen" where some HR flunky reads the job description says how wonderful the company is and how it's all about "work-life balance" and seven other trendy phrases, and asks you what kind of tree you'd be. Why do people do this?

There is also something extremely sus about meeting someone off-site for an interview. What are you hiding? That always sounds like somebody is going to get canned and you want a backup in place, so you don't let them meet the staff because you don't want the other guy to get suspicious.

Regards,
Brian

 

[TLHS]

Man, if someone asked me my biggest mistake and how I handled it I would end up on a hour long monologue with five pages of explanatory sketches.

I like the idea someone mentioned about having someone bring in a project that has something interesting they did on it. They're familiar with it already and you can ask them things to see what their level of understanding is and see if they can do the collaborative brain storming thing

 

[Sparweb]

You've got great suggestions so far. I have one item to add:
We give our candidates (for intermediate technical, design jobs) a drawing and ask them to interpret it. Explain what the part is for, where it goes (on the aircraft), how it's made and with what material(s). We don't select obscure parts and there's a name right in the middle of the title block to read. If the person really has no idea what various parts are for, then we can detect that they really haven't done as much aircraft design work as they claim.

We wouldn't give this to a fresh school grad. They won't have been exposed to such a thing in university/college. Although (secretly) I know that if any undergrad CAN interpret such a drawing, showing he/she already has some drafting/drawing/modeling experience, he/she would rocket to the top of my list of candidates.

In my office we have had a number of interns; roughly one every year. It was very easy to separate the ones who have a "mind's eye" for structure and the ones who don't (as KootK pointed out above).

 

[Boiler106]

That strikes me as irrational. Consider:

1) Does the set of all technically proficient structural engineers include a few who can draw a decent moment diagram? Absolutely.

2) Does the set of all technically proficient structural engineers include mostly folks who can draw a decent moment diagram? Surely.

A single data point tells you nothing.

thank you for your input, but I feel like you said the same thing twice. i also think your judgment of us is oversimplifying our interview process based on a two sentence post.

 

[phamENG]

I was not given a technical review when I got my first job out of school at a design firm. The next one after that I also didn't get a technical review because they were hiring me to be their on-site technical expert and didn't have anyone to check my technical knowledge. And now I'm self employed.

When/if I hire an engineer, I will absolutely give a technical assessment of some sort. But it will be a secondary or tertiary data point.

The personality and cultural (company, not ethnic, of course) fit are paramount. Doesn't matter how smart a person is if they don't fit in and the team can't work together. BUT...if I have a choice between two great personalities that fit, and one of them already knows how to do half the work I'm going to give him/her and the other is dumber than a box of rocks...well I'm going to pick the former. Without a technical assessment, I may not know which one.

Training is expensive, especially when going from one to two or two to three employees. At the very least, I want to have some idea how much I'm going to need to devote to technical training. It is also good for salary negotiations. Somebody comes in and can sit down and lay out a framing plan, pick a joist, and determine shear wall nailing...they get more money than the guy who struggles with a FBD and moment/shear diagrams because I can start getting profits from them sooner.

but I feel like you said the same thing twice.

They are subtly different, showing a progression in logic. To throw out the technical portion of an interview because one person who passed was a dud does sound a bit reactionary, since it could still help weed out lots of other duds. You just have to subtly shift the weight you give it in the decision making process.

 

[milkshakelake]

Somebody comes in and can sit down and lay out a framing plan, pick a joist, and determine shear wall nailing...they get more money than the guy who struggles with a FBD and moment/shear diagrams because I can start getting profits from them sooner.

There is some nuance to that. I found that I don't always have a great choice between the two. It might be a case where the person is structurally smart but not good with computers. I've hired such people and they're a lot less productive than people that have no structural understanding but can follow instructions. Of course, the perfect option is someone who is excellent with production and structural calculations; I've come across maybe a handful of those, tried to hire one, and he slipped away because a different company offered more $. I hired someone else who had no experience and no understanding of structures, and he turned out to be the best employee I ever had/have simply because he's good with computers and can follow instructions.

The personality and cultural (company, not ethnic, of course) fit are paramount.

Agreed with this 100%. It's a major factor; probably the single most important thing.

 

[phamENG]

There is some nuance to that.

And I agree with this 100%. I guess I would want to err on the side of more data. And I am all for springing it on somebody unannounced (but with the understanding that I'll take that into consideration.) Because doing so evaluates not just their knowledge, but their ability to apply the knowledge while dealing with stress. For the new grad, that may be laying out a framing plan or drawing a BMD. For an intermediate engineer, that might be showing them pictures of a decent but slightly flawed rebar placement or framing mistake and asking them what's wrong with it (or, better yet, showing them a perfect one and asking them what's wrong with it). Those things that crop up unexpectedly and have to be identified and dealt with quickly.

There are many pieces to the puzzle, and technical knowledge is just one of them. There is a cost and a benefit to each prospective employee, and to each of said employee's traits. If you don't know how adept or inept they are with the core technical aspects of the job, you're rolling the dice on the line item of the balance sheet. I don't like that.

 

[KootK]

thank you for your input, but I feel like you said the same thing twice.

I see what you mean. Typos in logical constructs are a big problem. I indended it like this:

1) Does the set of all technically proficient incompetent structural engineers include a few who can draw a decent moment diagram? Absolutely.

2) Does the set of all technically proficient structural engineers include mostly folks who can draw a decent moment diagram? Surely.

As with most things, pictures are usually better. I've provided a Venn diagram below below. I'm sporting a wicked head cold so, hopefully, I haven' messed that up too...

i also think your judgment of us is oversimplifying our interview process based on a two sentence post.

I don't doubt it. But, then, we can only work with what you've chosen to share. And, on the subject of whether or not technical exams have validity, what you've shared is that your organization seems to have decided that technical exams are not meaningful based on the statistical significance of singular data point.

A problem with tests intended to screen is that the effectiveness of the screening is only as good as the design of the test. In theory, one can screen for anything effectively with the right test. My experience thus far has been that firms put a miniscule amount of effort into the design of their exams. Who's got time for that kind of thing?? As such, we can certainly expect those exams to be pretty imperfect.

Commensurately, we use our exam as:

- 5% screening out instances of extreme technical deficiency or inability to handle pressure.

- 95% conversation starter, particularly for candidates who struggle to really showcase themselves well when discussing non-technical / HR things.

The big commonality between myself and an interviewee is our shared interest in structural engineering. So why not talk about that en route to getting to know one another? It's analogous to how most of my conversations with my neighbors revolve around home repair and the rearing of doodles.