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!

 

[SteynvW]

At one of my previous jobs they interviewed me with non-technical questions to establish if I would be a good cultural fit and after that the technical director and I went into the boardroom alone where he asked the technical questions that ranged from the following (this was for an intermediate level position).

Typical Concrete Strength
Typical Concrete E value
Steel Strength, steel E value
etc, some basic material questions.

Also typical depths and sizes for beams and columns for certain spans.

Then provided me with a pen and a piece of paper and asked the following.
Drawing bending moment for Simply Beam
Drawing bending moment for a continuous beam
Drawing bending moment for pinned portal frame
Drawing bending moment for fixed portal frame.

Nothing serious, but in a "stressful" situation, just confirming that you know the basics (basically graduate level)

 

[KootK]

We do a basic technical exam. For most candidates, it's trivial and we're primarily hiring for personality under the assumption that anything technical can be taught. However, it does serve the following useful functions:

1) It ensures that we don't hire anyone who goes to pieces, utterly, under a tiny bit of pressure and;

2) It ensures that we don't hire anyone who, truly, does not understand basic statics and internal force distributions.

Surprisingly to me, I've come across instances of both of these deficiencies in people who have had great resumes, advanced degrees, and have already made it through two prior rounds of interviewing. They're able to hide in plane sight somehow, like serial killers.

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. Two decades of experience in the industry has led me to believe that he was correct. Those folks need to do other things like, perhaps, engineering management.

 

[skeletron]

I took an interview ~6 years ago that had a technical pop-quiz. I recall there being 6 questions that were supposed to be worked out. They encouraged talking through the problems to better understand the thought process. The questions I remember were a basic frame BMD, a show-me-how-to-reinforce-this-concrete-beam question, a 3D statics textbook problem that had a dumb technicality to it, and a sample project where you were supposed to develop a method to demolish a bridge.

If you are going to give a technical test, I think you need to make the prospective employee aware of this beforehand. As much as I wasn't impressed with my own performance on this test (...I had just returned from a 3 year hiatus from the industry), I was equally disappointed that the bulk of the interview was focused on a test that I was not expecting. In another interview (non-engineering role), I was made aware that there would be a 30min test with a piece of software. That went really well, simply because I wasn't blindsided by the test.

That being said, as a current small business owner I would definitely have a technical assessment as part of any hiring process. If anything, it should be used as discussion with the candidate about concepts of engineering. No dumb 3d statics problems though, please and thank you.

 

[271828]

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. Two decades of experience in the industry has led me to believe that he was correct. Those folks need to do other things like, perhaps, engineering management.

I believe this 100%. When students ask questions, I can tell immediately whether their brains work correctly for our type of work.

 

[rb1957]

i'd concurr.

my interview question "derive the bending moment equation for a SS beam with a point load"

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[WARose]

In my humble opinion, I think you can gauge a candidate's capability by broad questions like "What areas have you worked in? Industrial? Commercial? Etc?.....what materials did you use in those designs?.....what software are you best with? STAAD? RISA?" I think that will tell you a whole lot more than asking about the modulus of elasticity of steel or something like that.

With that answered.....and the years of experience known....I think you can get a feel for where they are at. Some references to confirm that wouldn't be bad either.

Whatever you do....do not start out by asking "Tell me about yourself?" God, I can't stand that question. I hung up on a guy that asked me that. Even thinking about it raises the ol' blood pressure.

 

[slickdeals]

I totally agree with the "structural vision". This is rarely teachable. I have also had kids with excellent grades that struggled with spatial visualization, ability to think their way through a problem (break it down into smaller pieces) both of which are very essential.

TBH and with all due respect to rb1957, I don't care if they can't derive a bending moment equation, but I would be very worried if they can't identify the right bending moment and shear force diagrams for a variety of commonly encountered situations or struggle with statics and FBDs.

As a mentor, mentoring is only fun when the mentee is able to understand and apply the lessons you teach them, extrapolate them, do their own reading and ask questions. Otherwise, it is very frustrating and exhausting.

I would also be curious to hear from younger engineers that have gone through their interview process and how they've settled into their careers.
1. What were the few important things you did during the first 1-2 years that set you on a good path to succeed in consulting structural engineering?
2. What were some of the things that your mentors taught you that you still cherish?

 

[WARose]

What were some of the things that your mentors taught you that you still cherish?

I'll never forget it (and it's been more than 25 years ago)....the first thing my first boss ever told me: "Steel and concrete are a helluva lot cheaper than a lawsuit. When in doubt, make it stout."

 

[slickdeals]

Ha ha. We may have had the same first boss. 18 years ago, I heard the same thing. He also used to joke his designs are conservative because he's a Republican. Hands down he was one of the smartest engineers I have worked with. He was a practical engineer who didn't have to rely on higher order math or anything fancy to explain things.

 

[Brad805]

I agree with the technical points, but I think it is also very important to get a sense of their ability to read a drawings and understand them. 3D space seems a mystery for many and that is so very important.

 

[geesaman.d]

When hiring relatively fresh grads, we did not waste their time with an arbitrary knowledge test. We spent most of our time exploring their communication skills, particularly whether they can describe how they solved a technical problem of any kind. (One I recall detailed how he fabricated a sturdy but cheap replacement for an engine mount until the replacement part arrived).

For true technical aptitude, we did a few minute one on one walkthrough of a common stress analysis problem we handle regularly here. We present a couple of industry-specific / proprietary equations in the process, sketch out a sample case, and ask them ways to optimize the system for a given outcome, considering these equations. Just like we do when we're collaboratively problem-solving. It's easy to see who can think analytically and who can't, without the artificial pomp of writing questions and answers.

We had an engineer here who was an equation jockey and pedant and highly one-dimensional in his views and abilities. He apparently had opened a random engineering textbook and quizzed candidates on stuff he thought they might have been taught in school. He wasn't allowed near candidates of value after that.

 

[MotorCity]

If I was paying somebody thousands of dollars a year out of my own pocket to serve as a structural engineer, I'd like to know what I'm getting (or not getting) for my money. Engineering is a technical profession. As such, there are expectations of technical competence whether the candidate is 1 year or 50 years after college. Yes, I want to know if they are a good cultural fit. Yes, I want to know if they can communicate reasonably well. But above all, they are being hired as engineers, or problem solvers. Technical competence should increase with experience and can be taught. But it can only be learned by those who show an interest and put forth the effort. This necessarily means asking questions, making mistakes......but learning from those questions and mistakes. I think most experienced, well versed engineers can gage someone's technical ability reasonably well through a brief verbal discussion and/or a written "quiz" on technical information. I think putting someone to the test is certainly a valid way to weed out the posers.

 

[mtu1972]

I had my first interview with a large well known firm in San Francisco in late 1971 or early 1972. I was from a small town (700 people) six miles from Michigan Technological University in Houghton Michigan. First time anyone in my family flew on an airplane.

There were several people that I interviewed with. They treated the design like an assembly line and showed me a large room with several rows of desks. Projects started at the top of the line and were passed down to the next person for their part of the design, and so on and on.

Late in the interview process, they had me talk to a MTU grad from another part of the UP. He was from somewhere near Escanaba and his “design specialty” was concrete columns. Often just being the piers supporting the steel columns for the loads/reactions that were passed down the assembly line. He was bored turdless with his job. I knew I would not be happy with any job like that.

The company did make me an offer, but I turned it down.

gjc

 

[Luceid]

Agree with most of the folks so far, my favorite interview (despite not ending up working for the company) was a 1 on 1 technical interview which had some unique statics problems that I had to draw moment diagrams for - but I was free to talk and bounce off the technical interviewer. Then it opened up to a group of 2 or 3 folks for the more standard interview process. It felt a lot more like how we do engineering in the day to day, or in school.

 

[mronlinetutor]

I went to a job for an interview. I went to the office and asked the manager. I said, "Engineering." The manager said, "Downstairs. The accounting department is upstairs."


disclaimer: all calculations and comments must be checked by senior engineers before they are taken to be acceptable.

 

[dauwerda]

I'm surprised at how many people have talked about technical tests as a part of an interview simply because I have never had that experience with any of the interviews I have partaken in (probably like 10 different companies through college job fair when I was a fresh grad/still in school and 5 or 6 companies since then). Part of the interviews have all been talking about technical things verbally, but never written. I have always felt like you can pick up on technical capability enough through conversation and if the technical stuff is there, cultural fit is way more important to the success of the individual with any particular company.

 

[bugbus]

I've never seen technical tests (or even any sort of informal technical discussion) as part of recruiting but I think they should be used. It would filter out a lot of the duds to put it frankly.

I find it amazing that companies (at least where I am) tend to hire engineers for technical positions based on their self-described work experience and soft skills alone.

Too many times have I seen new hires unable to construct a simple bending moment diagram or do a quick back of the envelope calculation on reinforcement, etc. I'm talking about the most basic of technical skills, things you would learn in your second year of university.

100% agree with the 'structural vision' mentioned earlier. Working with a group of engineers for a while, it's really black-and-white which camp they fall into. Some just 'get' it, others never will.

 

[271828]

If I ever find myself interviewing for a job again, I'm going to have a test ready for the interviewer. That way, if he or she gives a test to me, I'll give mine to them and we can make it into a little game. Test THEIR technical competence. LOL

 

[271828]

I'm surprised at how many people have talked about technical tests as a part of an interview simply because I have never had that experience with any of the interviews I have partaken in

Me neither. I worked for two of the best EOR firms in the region and neither of them gave a test. The idea of a test rubs me the wrong way a little.

OP, if you're concerned and want to all but eliminate the chance of hiring a technical dud new grad, then I'd recommend something like the following.

First, look at the transcript. In today's world of inflated grades, look for all A grades or maybe one or two B grades in key structural and engineering mechanics courses. I've only seen one student in quite a few years who got all A grades, but I could tell that he or she wasn't very good.

Next, call one or two professors. They know their MS students. If the candidate is good, the professor will likely be very clear about it.

If they make it to the interview, then you could just talk to them about technical stuff to get a feel for their general understanding.