字体 -

今天下了班去考试,考题是,写篇命题作文。话说在加拿大有个小TOWN,财政有盈余了,足够雇佣下面三个员工中的一个,1。RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR;2。法官;3。消防员;问,如果我是决策者,我雇佣这三者中的哪一个?

准备考试的时候,各种题目都准备一番,唯独没想到这么个偏门儿,这跟咱移民生活根本就不搭界啊,第一代移民,就是个牺牲的命,混得再好也轮不上咱去任命法官或雇佣政府公务员啊,唉,正所谓,智者千虑,必有一失,聪明如我者,今天也只好认栽了,好在MAHU历来是胡扯专业高材生,大笔一挥,胡弄了洋洋洒洒几百个字,交卷!Laughing

刁难考生这种事,本以为只在中国发生,没想到现在这些洋鬼子也学会了,大家以后考试复习可要当心啦,一定要做到,上知天文、下知地理,否则非被考倒了不可,看看下面这个微软的面试刁难,才知道,当今世界,混口饭吃真是TMD太不易了! 

Some years ago, someone at Microsoft noticed that they were having a bit of a Resources problem. A Human Resources problem to be specific. There were a whole lot of job openings (thousands, in fact) and a whole lot of applications (hundreds of thousands, in fact), and no easy way to match the right applicants with the right jobs. So they decided to reinvent the Job Interview.

Traditionally, job interviews are used to ascertain two things: how competent the candidate is and how well his personality (or lack thereof) will fit in with the organization. With their introduction of Job Interview 2.0, Microsoft included both of those features and added one additional: how the candidate responds when presented with asinine, utterly pointless, and completely ridiculous brainteaser questions.

Of course, common sense tells us that a candidate who enjoys solving silly riddles would most likely enjoy solving a silly riddle at a job interview. The same can be said about pepperoni pizza: chances are, if a candidate enjoys eating pepperoni pizza, he will also enjoy eating pepperoni pizza at a job interview. Both are facts which, while completely enthralling (no way, you like pepperoni pizza, too?!), are equally as irrelevant when determining whether someone would make a good programmer.

If you haven’t seen any of the Job Interview 2.0 questions offered by Microsoft, here are a few:

How would you determine the weight of a Boeing 747? Given an opaque box with three light bulbs inside and three switches outside, how would you determine which switch corresponded to which bulb if the box could be opened only once and only after all the switches were permanently set? You are at a ravine with three others and need to cross a rickety bridge. You can cross it in one minute, the three others can cross it in two, five, and ten, respectively. A flashlight (your group has only one) is always required to cross, and only two people can cross at a time. How do cross as quickly as possible? Naturally, being that they’re brainteasers, no common sense or practicality is allowed. And this is precisely why I would fail miserably at this part of Job Interview 2.0:

I’d ask Boeing… I can’t ask Boeing?! Uhh, I’d ask a librarian… Of course a librarian would know, they look stuff up, that’s their job! Who would build such a stupid, broken box? I’d fix it of course… I haven’t even seen the stupid box! How do you know I can’t fix it? Obviously, we’d leave the slow guy behind. We’re clearly in a bad place, in a bad situation, and we don’t have any time for the big fat fatty to slow us down. It’s survival! Thankfully, Microsoft realized that the type of people who enjoy these riddles aren’t always good programmers, and good programmers aren’t always the type who enjoy these riddles. In fact, some of the folks who can solve these riddles are precisely the type of people you don’t want as programmers. Would you want to work with the guy who builds a water-displacement scale/barge, taxis a 747 to the docks, and then weights the jumbo jet using that, instead of simply calling Boeing in the first place?

Unfortunately, Microsoft’s realization came too late: a whole mini-industry has spawned around the concept of Job Interview 2.0. If Microsoft did it, it must work, right? There are books written on brainteasers in the interview, consultants who will help your company annoy the hell out candidates with your very own custom brainteasers, and now, everyone from small software firms to big ole’ banks are asking stupid riddle questions.

They will eventually realize how useless of a practice this is. They will eventually give it up. In the meantime, however, you – the job seeker – will have to put up with it.

Or not. One reader shared with me the story of his brainteaser interview.

During a screening interview, I was asked how I would design a bike fit for someone visually impaired. I responded something to the effect of, “What, like, for blind people?”, and she answered yes.

I thought for a moment and then I responded, “Well.. a blind person riding a bike doesn’t sound like a very safe idea, so I would make the bike stationary, maybe with a fan blowing in the person’s face. He probably wouldn’t even know the difference.”

She was speechless.

Now, granted, he will not get the job. Despite the complete absurdity of the design request, and the complete practicality of his answer, the job will go to a candidate who manages to answer the question by designing an extremely overcomplicated solution for a completely non-existent problem. And that candidate will be the same person who designs their software.

几年前,微软发现在资源上出了点乱子,说白了吧,是人力资源上出了乱子。其实是这个样子滴: 招聘的大门常打开,应聘的人也不少来,可是来应聘的人跟岗位怎么看也对不上号啊。于是他们觉得该重新设计面试方法了。

按照老路子,面试就确定俩事儿:一个是这个人能不能胜任工作,二是这个人不能太各色,要能融入组织。微软的面试2.0呢,除了这俩条,还加了一个:冷不丁的给应聘的一个根本不靠谱的问题,甚至是让人摸不找头脑,极其二B的提问,看看他们怎么个反映。

一般来说吧,一个应聘的如果本来就爱玩文字游戏,他(她)在面试的时候也会乐于解答二b问题。换句话说,如果应聘人爱吃烙饼,那他面试的时候也会爱吃。看明白了么?这个大猜谜跟面试程序员跟本他妈的挨不上边儿。

如果你还不知道面试2.0都有什么样的问题,我给你展一眼。

波音747有多重?

有个暗盒子,里面仨灯泡,外面仨开关,线全接好了后盒子只能开一次,你怎么知道那个开关开那个灯?

你和仨人在峡谷里要过一个破桥,你一分钟能过去,另外那仨人得分别用二,五,十,分钟才能过去。过桥得用手电,你们只有一个,你们怎么才能用最快的时间过去?

其实吧,这样的问题都是扯淡,你要是非用常识和实践方法去解答那就更二了。就拿我来说吧,我肯定过不了这些问题,而且非常有可能答成这个操性:

那我得问问波音公司。。。什么?我不能问他们?啊。。。那我就问图书馆里的人儿,你想啊,他们一天到晚就查书啊,他们就是干这个的啊!

这是谁他妈的弄的破盒子啊?你放心,我肯定能弄好,不过我还没看见这盒子什么样儿呢,你怎么知道我弄不好啊???

太明显了。我们必须扔下最慢的那个。你想啊,这他妈的都什么情况了啊!决不能让大胖子拖后腿,事关生存啊!

后来啊,微软明白过闷来了,那些答得好的不见得是好的程序员,好的程序员呢,可能答不出这些问题。事实是:那些回答的好的人非常有可能是你最不想要的人。你想啊,本来给波音公司打个电话就能解决的事儿,你非得引水造坝,然后把波音747拖到水边上再去秤,你丫愿意跟这么一位一起上班吗?

不幸的是,微软明白的有点晚了。各个企业全他妈的开始用面试2.0了。微软做的,能错的了吗?有的人开始著书写怎么问更二B的问题,有的人给企业出谋划策,量身定做二B问题,突然之间,从皮包公司到知名企业全他妈的问起二B面试大猜迷了。

不过我觉得最终他们会明白这样面试根本不靠谱,最后也会放弃这样的面试。但是,现在你作为一个应聘者,你还得学着适应这些二B问题,或,想别的折。有个朋友跟我说了他面试的经历:

在一次筛选面试时,我被问了个问题:你怎么给视觉有障碍的人设计一个自行车?

我回问道:“什么?给瞎子设计自行车”,面试官说是。

我想了一会儿,然后说:“我觉得吧,让瞎子骑车不是很安全。如果你非让我设计,我就把自行车固定在地上,然后给他前面放个风扇吹,他根本觉不出有什么区别。”

面试官哑口无言。

当然了。我这个朋友肯定是得不到这个工作了,尽管我觉得他回答的挺靠谱。但是你琢么吧,会有个二逼会给这么一个根本不存在的情况设计出一个巨复杂之无与伦比的解决方案,而他会去公司设计软件。

分享博文至: