[bdw5204]

> In every round, the interviewer should leave with the impression that you answered their questions as honestly as possible because you’re looking for the right fit, not just a job.

This is precisely what I despise about "job interviews". What you ask in the "Do you have any questions?" section of the interview should be irrelevant. I don't want to have to ask questions when I don't care about the answers just because that's what "top candidates" are supposed to do. What you're actually measuring is how much the person you're talking to is willing to read articles like this to come up with fake questions to ask as part of a fake performance so you'll hire them.

[happyopossum]

I suppose it depends on the role, but IME as a hiring interviewer, that phase of the interview can important.

Do you truly not care to learn anything about the company you will spend the next 2,3,5,10 years with?

[seadan83]

The interesting stuff that will make an employment unpleasant is not going to come out in an interview. That stuff comes out over time. To boot, I can think of quiet a few lies/half truths from interviewers. It is like dating, nobody says they are actually a lazy slob and the codebase is a POS on the first date.

[bdw5204]

For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again.

I imagine somebody who's currently employed wants to know that the company is better than the place they're currently at before they'd accept an offer. But sometimes "better" can be a very low bar to clear because their current company might be awful.

In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. Somebody being unemployed or employed in a toxic environment doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them especially in an economy where companies continue to lay people off at random.

[cwillu]

My impression has always been that very little information given in either direction in an interview is relevant to the next year, let alone the next ten.

[kevinventullo]

FWIW at the big tech companies I’ve worked at, that part of the interview does not have any impact on hiring decisions.

[faizshah]

In theory it’s irrelevant in practice although companies try to make the process quantitative it is ultimately qualitative because it’s a human rating on a qualitative rubric. The impression you leave on the interviewer always makes a difference in how they represent you in their feedback and panels.

It’s like in school every TA uses the same rubric yet they all grade differently.

[greenthrow]

If you don't have any interest why do you want to work at that organization? You just want a check? That's not a good way to spend half your waking hours during the work week.

[bdw5204]

If you aren't already wealthy, you're probably working because "you just want a check". Even if the job you want is to own your own company, you still have to work until you have enough savings. This is how the world has always worked for most of the population in every human society that has ever existed.

[seadan83]

Because the answers are likely not reliable anyways. Catfishing is the term.

[stevenpetryk]

Yeah. When I’m interviewing folks at my current company, and the Q&A portion begins, I tell them they can ask whatever they want or just reclaim the time; my notes are sealed. More interviewers should operate like that.

[lolinder]

You can tell them that, but I don't think I'd believe it as a candidate. I'll assume that every interaction I have with you up until an offer is extended is going to influence your perception of me, whether you're taking notes or not.