What a silly story. They applied for a job that made it clear they were looking for someone who could proficiently program, and they couldn't do it. So they didn't get the job. What a surprise.
Asking for a list of tasks that will come up or code examples is particularly naive. Technical jobs aren't a laundry list of exact needs.
Being an engineer in any field requires versatility, including the ability to solve problems on your feet and to learn new technology, or to learn tech you already know to a greater depth, at the drop of a hat.
This is one of the few times I've ever read a story about impostor syndrome where the story teller actually was an impostor. Bizarre.
I think you missed the point of the story, which was that the company was asking for a combination of skills that never exist in the same person. An unicorn. In that context it is reasonable to assume that if you have the core competency (in this case design skills, not coding), then you should apply.
Also fizz buzz has nothing to do with the kind of programming that was expected from the job description. Now you might reasonably object that fizz buzz is supposed to be something so rudimentary that any programmer could implement. But the point is UI/UX people don't typically do any algorithms work at all. Their interaction with JS is often just to call an API and shove the resulting data where it needs to be in the DOM. They may never have to use a loop, ever. Or conditional testing. Or think about infinite sequences. To a proper software engineer like you or me fizz buzz seems ridiculously simple. But I could totally see a UX designer whose only interaction with self-taught JS is to glue APIs together being tripped up.
Her point about the title "engineer" being in nearly every job posting while basically conferring zero meaning is definitely on point, but her mock outrage about being asked an extremely rudimentary programming question surprised me given that one of the requirements of the job was JavaScript...
In this context, I was expecting another unusual/proficient implementation of FizzBuzz. I didn't enjoy this story about someone who was asked FizzBuzz in an interview and didn't think the position should require her to know that.
She’s complaining that the job description didn’t mention coding as a requirement, but it actually says “deliver solid, reliable code”..?
And fizzbuzz is not a math problem. I’m sure the interviewer would’ve even given her a hint if she came as far as writing a loop and writing the different branches but not figuring out how to differentiate the cases. I’d shrug that off as nervousness perhaps.
Reading all the comments on there about people not knowing how to write fizz buzz was actually scary.
I get that fizz buzz isn't a useful project or whatever, but it's not like you have to be a genius to figure it out. Someone mentioned needing CS161 or something... Not really a requirement, more like knowing how to write basic code.
I love this story because I run across jobs all the time that sound great in the title and then you read the job description - it often sounds like a list of buzzwords or a combination of multiple people into one job. It’s like she says, they lumped everything into one position.
KnobbleMcKnees|2 years ago
Asking for a list of tasks that will come up or code examples is particularly naive. Technical jobs aren't a laundry list of exact needs.
Being an engineer in any field requires versatility, including the ability to solve problems on your feet and to learn new technology, or to learn tech you already know to a greater depth, at the drop of a hat.
This is one of the few times I've ever read a story about impostor syndrome where the story teller actually was an impostor. Bizarre.
mike_hock|2 years ago
"Write FizzBuzz" - "OMG, MATH!"
Impostor meets Dunning-Kruger.
adastra22|2 years ago
Also fizz buzz has nothing to do with the kind of programming that was expected from the job description. Now you might reasonably object that fizz buzz is supposed to be something so rudimentary that any programmer could implement. But the point is UI/UX people don't typically do any algorithms work at all. Their interaction with JS is often just to call an API and shove the resulting data where it needs to be in the DOM. They may never have to use a loop, ever. Or conditional testing. Or think about infinite sequences. To a proper software engineer like you or me fizz buzz seems ridiculously simple. But I could totally see a UX designer whose only interaction with self-taught JS is to glue APIs together being tripped up.
throwaway675309|2 years ago
firesteelrain|2 years ago
Noumenon72|2 years ago
firesteelrain|2 years ago
eska|2 years ago
And fizzbuzz is not a math problem. I’m sure the interviewer would’ve even given her a hint if she came as far as writing a loop and writing the different branches but not figuring out how to differentiate the cases. I’d shrug that off as nervousness perhaps.
thumbuddy|2 years ago
vorticalbox|2 years ago
pt_PT_guy|2 years ago
firesteelrain|2 years ago