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!

 

[dik]

I think it depends on how you address the problem; that says much more. I think the test would be very difficult for someone with no experience. I think pham's burning bus analogy is pretty close.

The first half a dozen engineers I started out with were incredibly helpful, and set me on my journey.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[271828]

We mostly hire students as fresh hires and then use the following years to pick the cream of the crop as salaried, but there was a time where I had consecutively extended 25 offers and had 100% acceptance rate. This is my interview process. Keep in mind we even hire freshman and sophomores who have never had a structural class yet: ...

IMO, that test is pretty far over the top. It feels like an attempt to mess with the interviewee's head. If I was the interviewee, I would be wondering what life would be like within the company culture. The interviewer failed the psychological test in that case, LOL.

 

[BulbTheBuilder]

I am young grad and I know most of you here are experienced engineers, so I am going to share this from the perspective of a young engineer.

I think technical questions are fair based on how they are constructed and phrased. There are scenarios where I have to work with master's degree holders, and they are having trouble doing bending moment for simply-supported beam. And no one wants that... Employers are in to make profit and would want someone who can ramp up and match the team's dynamics and speed or provide supplementary support where and when necessary.
However, one common trend I have experienced/observed is interviewers try to mock candidates or make them feel "stupid" and trust me there are certain people or companies I will never deal with. Yes, my beef with both the individuals and companies (because I feel they have enabled this culture, and it is not something I'd want to be part of). We all started from somewhere and all needed a starting point, but you don't have to ridicule new grads or make feel like idiots during interviews. They might not be "smart" as you'd have wanted, they can't identify beam's bending moment and shear, that's OK, you can pass them and move to your next candidate.

First interview from school, I was asked about my research work and projects and my personal opinion on those. They asked me if I was familiar with some of the designs they do which I responded not entirely. There was a whiteboard, and they did some simple sketches trying to explain things to me see how best I related. Mostly about pile designs, diaphragms, and other advanced steel design stuff (let's be honest, how many new grads have a better understanding of piles and diaphragms). The comment the manager made was, "we will teach you these things, don't worry your brains about them for now).

 

[271828]

The more I think about the original question, the more I'm put off by the exam idea in general.

Presumably, you're interviewing candidates who just spent 4-6 years in college and passed the FE exam. If you're concerned about technical competence, then inspect the transcript and set the bar very high, such as all A grades in relevant courses. If you're still concerned, ask the professors if the candidate is very good. If this isn't good enough, then hire fresh SEs; there are not many duds in that group.

The exam comes off like an ego challenge. If my first interaction with my potential next leader indicates he or she is eager to demonstrate superiority, then that's not a good sign. It's hard to see how to deliver such an exam without it coming off that way. That's certainly how most or all of the examples in this thread hit me.

 

[phamENG]

I still think a technical exam can be valuable. A university engineering curriculum is not a vocational school; it is not and should not be geared toward ensuring a graduate is fully equipped to do their job on day one. It's meant to provide a fundamental understanding of the theories and tools that make our work possible. The rest is learned from doing.

A technical exam geared toward practice related questions and recapping some basics statics (that they may not have touched for 3 years) can give a the employer an idea of how they retain information and how they apply it. It doesn't have to be written. It could be in the form of a verbal interview with discussion to get a feel how they'd think through problems. It could break them down in written form. Lots of ways to skin the cat. These things are very important and the company needs to know how the new hire is going to think and act.

 

[KootK]

Presumably, you're interviewing candidates who just spent 4-6 years in college and passed the FE exam.

I have very little faith in transcripts or the FE exam to screen anyone meaningfully from a technical perspective. I've encountered plenty of folks with excellent transcripts who were shockingly poor technically. I think that comes about via two mechanisms:

1) In the North American post secondary system, anybody who shows up to class regularly and turns in all of their assignments seems to be able to pull off a GPA of 3.2 or better regardless of whether they develop any real understanding. The system seems built to push students through unless they are downright negligent in my opinion. Screening for straight A's in the important stuff would help but, then, it would also shrink the talent pool down to a puddle.

2) Students "train" for exams like athletes train for events. Get in the zone, carb load, review homework and old exams... then deliver at go time, ideally working from muscle memory. In many ways, its a system designed to showcase strategic test preparation rather than the depth of understanding. Any question that I would ask a new grad on a screening test would have been covered between the first and third academic years normally. With some time having elapsed since the "training", I feel that this is a more meaningful way to see if someone can actually apply what they purport to have learned.

The exam comes off like an ego challenge.

It is an ego challenge, by design and for the candidate.

1) If someone's ego is so small and fragile that they freeze up like a deer in the proverbial headlights while taking a silly exam in a nice warm office, then I want them working for my competition rather than in the foxhole alongside me when things get rough, as they tend to.

2) If someone's ego is so large that they are offended by the very exercise of being tested, then I question whether that person will:

a) Possess enough humility to work well with my team and;
b) Be coachable as most folks entering structural engineering need to be. As we all know, there is a lot to learn after graduation.

When folks are "put off" by a basic technical exam, I take that as bonus screening in the HR sense.

Any form of screening is stochastic by nature. When I judge people as I've described, I surely wind up with a few dolphins in the net. Nobody relishes the thought of having dolphins in their net but that's the nature of the beast. If you have more than one choice, recruitment becomes the act of judging candidates based on imperfect information.

 

[271828]

I still think a technical exam can be valuable.

It could be.

My judgment on the subject FWIW: Discussing technical stuff to get a feel for depth of knowledge and thought processes is fine. Having the interviewee work out problems seems over the top. Weird psychological probing (mind games) is way over the top.

 

[DrZoidberWoop]

I've never had an interview that lasted less than an hour, and never taken a test. The interviews have been more of a personality and background check.

You (the knowledgeable expert) should be able to ascertain a candidate's technical ability without resorting to an exam. However, I will admit, the 0-3 year range is where aspiring engineers are most likely to "inflate" their resumes. Having a 5 minute discussion about using Microsoft Excel, or whatever program, can be very revealing.

The best engineering hires we have made in the 0-3 year experience pool were all "field engineers," working towards their PE licenses. Being on site for things like concrete pours, bolt pre-installation verifications, and collecting data on nonconformances seemed to really help with engineering decisions later on.

After an initial interview, we have new hires go through a 3-month probationary period before they are brought on as full employees. That's the time to properly evaluate their technical abilities, motivation level, and other talents,. If they can't be motivated to improve or adapt during that time, we politely decline to officially hire them.

 

[271828]

KootK, it's interesting how something looks this or that way depending on the perspective. Here's how the idea of an Ego Exam hits me:

The interviewer pits his ego against the interviewee's ego to test the interviewee's ego. In doing so, it seems like the interviewer failed the ego exam.

I know that isn't exactly what you typed, but that's the underlying tone for me. It is a million times more important that leaders do not have ego issues. I'd almost expect ego issues from a new guy.

I have a question for you: How would you feel if an experienced interviewee hands an exam to you to test your technical skills and psychological makeup?

 

[KootK]

You (the knowledgeable expert) should be able to ascertain a candidate's technical ability without resorting to an exam.

I've failed at this utterly, two times now in my 20+ years. I accidentally hired people that were complete technical duds and were unable to make up the shortfall in a reasonable amount of time. And both instances were excruciating in that they involved rendering friends unemployed. One of them, miraculously, still is a good friend.

It isn't just the employer that suffers when a candidate is a poor fit for a job. Think getting rejected hurts? Think having to take a silly test is psychologically painful? Try signing up for a thing, doing you best, and getting punted from the team anyhow to find yourself unemployed and humiliated within your circle of friends and family. I've also lived this as the one who has lost their livelihood, twice now. It's a nightmare.

It is this outcome, more than any other, I that seek to avoid with the screening. It's merciful. Being stuck in a net is a whole lot better than winding up on the pointy end of the harpoon.

 

[271828]

I've failed at this utterly, two times now in my 20+ years. I accidentally hired people that were complete technical duds and were unable to make up the shortfall in a reasonable amount of time. And both instances were excruciating in that they involved rendering friends unemployed. One of them, miraculously, still is a good friend.

That sucks. I can see where you're coming from on this subject.

 

[WesternJeb]

I would like to second Koot's post about how easy college is now days, in the United States at least, and how the FE/PE are not great indicators of one's technical ability. The only people in my program that didn't make it through were those who got caught cheating, and even most of them made it through and graduated after being caught at least once. A few of my classes were a teacher giving us a book, a test every month, and no lectures.

 

[KootK]

Here's how the idea of an Ego Exam hits me...The interviewer pits his ego against the interviewee's ego to test the interviewee's ego. In doing so, it seems like the interviewer failed the ego exam.

I don't understand your focus on the "ego exam". It's not an ego exam. And no one is "pitting" their ego against anyone else's. It is simply a basic technical exam that I expect candidates to be able to deal with maturely, as a result of their having healthy egos in their own right.

It's not battle; it's helping another human being to find a suitable home for their skills and ambitions.

I have a question for you: How would you feel if an experienced interviewee hands an exam to you to test your technical skills and psychological makeup?

I would grab the interviewee by the jugular, smash her face into the table, and then knee her in the kidney until she stopped moving for having been so brazen.

Come on... I imagine that I would be amused by the boldness of the play and that I'd probably invite the interviewee out for a beer and some tech talk after they got hired. Or, perhaps, even if they didn't get hired.

What technical skill I have I've primarily acquired by inviting people that I respect to challenge me on it. That's how I grow and it is most of what brings me here to Eng-Tips. It occasionally requires the ruffling of a few feathers but, again, I feel that I'm emotionally equipped to handle that.

 

[KootK]

Back in the days of the Madmen series, I decided that I'd like to try my hand at high powered sales. So I landed myself an interview for a big $$$ job with local LaFarge office.

My second interview was an in depth meeting with with HR. And they gave me a version of a "quiz" tailored to the role of hardball sales. I see the pattern of the questions now, in retrospect, but they were skillfully hidden in plain sight at time:

1) What do you like to do on the weekends?

2) When you imagine your ideal social event, how many people are there?

3) Is this really how you dress??

At the end of the interview the HR gal told me that I was done. She said I was an introvert doing a piss poor job of trying to pretend to be an extrovert and I'd hate the job if they gave it to me. And I'm grateful for that as I suspect that she was right.

 

[271828]

Ha! Cage match to see who gets the job!! I was just going by "It is an ego challenge, by design and for the candidate." I understand the experiences that caused your perspective, so--moving on.

More to the group:

I am curious how all of you exam givers would respond if an experienced interviewee gave you an exam. If the interviewer thinks he/she is too advanced to put up with something like that, then there aren't many dots to connect about ego there. Personality assessment goes both ways. If it strikes you as out-of-line that an interviewee would give you an exam, then it seems like the golden rule would tell you what to do with your exam process.

Anyway, I've run my mouth, or keyboard, more than enough on this topic. Good day folks!

 

[KootK]

If it strikes you as out-of-line that an interviewee would give you an exam, then it seems like the golden rule would tell you what to do with your exam process.

I think that is a pretty flawed analogy because it doesn't pay homage to the obvious power differential between the interviewer and the interviewee in that situation. When I go to get a root canal, I don't ask my dentist if I can do him first.

I think that the analogous question is really just "would you object to taking an exam when you are the interviewee?". And, as we can see here, folks have differing opinions on that.

 

[271828]

What power differential? That's why I said experienced interviewer.

The dentist had totally different education and expertise.

 

[TLHS]

If your 'exam' question isn't a jerk-ish gotcha question and it's worded as "look at this and walk me through it" I don't see how that should be an ego issue. A reasonable amount of engineering is communicating what you're doing and explaining things to people.

If someone thought they were too advanced to explain something then I'd be concerned.

A test where you're going to score people on some type of specifically right answer is potentially insulting if you're left without your normal resources. A test where you ask people questions to understand their thought process isn't.

 

[phamENG]

271828 - I haven't given an exam, just saying I see value in it...but I would like to think I'd welcome it. After all, how many of us have said it's disappointing when the candidate doesn't ask any questions?

Now, there are exceptions...if I allotted 30 minutes for the interview and have 4 of them lined up, I might decline to take the quiz. Or I might offer to review the questions and respond with an email.

I think it's important to understand that there are power dynamics at play, but we're a profession. The power dynamic between a partner and a graduate engineer isn't quite as extreme as, say, a restaurant owner and a dishwasher. The candidate pool is a whole lot shallower for us.

 

[SwinnyGG]

The power dynamic between a partner and a graduate engineer isn't quite as extreme as, say, a restaurant owner and a dishwasher

Respectfully disagree. If a dishwasher gets fired or quits because the owner is perceived to be a dick, it is not hard to find another dishwashing job.

The 'disaster' scenario described by Koot above - where you accept an offer, work there for a summer, and get fired despite your best effort - can be VERY difficult to overcome as a young engineer.

With all of the hand wringing above about 'testing', how many of you are likely to offer an interview to young kid who may not even be an EIT yet who flamed out at one of your competitors in less than a year? Let alone offer them a job? That early failure is a black mark on the record that can take years to fade.

While not every newly minted grad knows what's at stake, a lot of them - particularly the very sharp ones we are are mining for - do, and that only adds to the level of pressure. This thread is chock full of highly experienced, highly competent engineers who are successful. Respectfully, I wonder if some (I hesitate to say all) of you have lost to time the memory of what it feels like to be brand new and moderately unsure of whether or not everything is going to work out in your favor.

I think that some level of technical assessment can be very valuable in the interview process.. the more real world experience you have the less importance it should carry, I think everyone is on the same page there. But just as writing clear, concise, appropriately worded and detailed exam questions is very hard, I think that crafting a technical assessment that is clear, concise, and actually provides the information you really want (does this candidate 'have it' or do they not) is equally or maybe more difficult.