Analytical interview questions

[nolanfan34]

I disagree that these questions show nothing about the candidate. I wonder how many people who think that actually have to do some interviews. I've had to do a bunch now, and based on what I now know about some of the people I wished I had asked questions like this to understand their thought process a bit better.

I do think that some of the random ones like how many light bulbs on the Vegas strip aren't as valuable as some of the problem solving ones that are more like the 747 or McDonalds sales ones.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think that some of the random ones like how many light bulbs on the Vegas strip aren't as valuable as some of the problem solving ones that are more like the 747 or McDonalds sales ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. An off-the-wall question may allow you to find out how a guy reacts under pressure, but if they aren't going to be in that situation, what relevance is that?

A question like McDonalds sales could be relevant for some type of financial analyst position. But it is useless for a programmer. That's why you should ask probing questions that are relevant to the position they are interviewing for:

If you're interviewing a programmer, ask how they would program a certain algorithm.

If you're interviewing a salesperson, ask what kind of strategy they would use to increase sales to an existing client. Or how they would sell to new clients.

If you're interviewing a lawyer, ask how they interpret a relevant decision, or how they would deal with a bad client. Don't ask them to name the dissenting judge in a case when that information can be found out in 10 seconds with a simple Google search (especially if you're conducting interviews for Google [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ).

Asking a question outside their field is useless. The worst programmer in the world might simply know how to calculate the number of balls would fit in a 747. They'd impress you with that answer, but it tells you nothing about their day to day skills.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
My first thought for the plane question was that the balls won't have 100% efficiency - it's basically like a cubic crystal packing problem.

Packing fractions:
face-centered-cubic: 74%
body-centered-cubic: 68%
simple packing: 52%

I'm not sure which the ping-pong-balls would be with all of them being the same size. Probably BCC. I could do the math, but I'm not -that- bored.

You could probably estimate it's around the 70% mark just to make your numbers easy in this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't forget hcp

[SonnyJay]

In a vacuum, these questions can help to view a person's thought process. However, if the person being interviewed bought the Vault Guide or comparable book, they probably either:
1) Have heard it before and know how to answer it, or
2) Know enough to give you the answer you want to hear, regardless of their actual thought process


There's a pretty good one that I read in some guide:

You have twelve spheres. Each one is exactly the same size and color, but one has a different weight. You don't know whether the different sphere weighs more or less than the others. You have a scale that you can use to weigh the spheres against each other. What is the fewest number of weighings needed to both identify the different sphere and tell if it was heavier or lighter than the rest?

It takes a while to work through, and it's more of a "brain teaser" than a case question, but since you have to really work through every step I think it's better. Granted, since I saw this in a case interview guide there's a chance that the person you're interviewing did too, but it's a harder to fake the thought process if you already know the answer, and there's a good chance that they'll trip up and skip a step without explanation if they already know it.

[NajdorfDefense]

People who don't think these questions are useful are probably either idiots, or have never had to interview someone for I-banking or consulting or trading jobs before. It's not about 'guessing,' if you think it is, you fail.

It's about showing a logical, rigorous thought process within an amorphous time constraint. It's about being able to politely discusss your answers and assumptions to a problem you don't actually know the answer to. It's about being able to think on your feet, perhaps [generally] without pen and paper. It's about being able to dig for more information [which stupidly, most candidates do not do] such as 'Are the seats in the plane?' etc.

If I'm hiring an fx trader/trainee out of school, interviewing some engineer who wants to change paths, and he spends 30 mins crafting a very meticulous, logical and correct answer, he won't get that job.
If she goes thru the process correctly, but does the math wrong in her head and gets 3mm instead of 30mm, but doesn't notice her error, that is also meaningful.

These are obviously for introductory/1st round interviews. Aftr that comes technical questions, fit questions, personality questions. Nobody knows if you can be an I-banker or a bond trader or HF salesman when you're coming out of school, or changing jobs with no prior industry experience.

The funny thing is, the people here who bitched about these logical questions I bet bitch 2x more about 'personality' questions. It's like they just want to show up and get the offer because they feel they are 'smart.'

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. An off-the-wall question may allow you to find out how a guy reacts under pressure, but if they aren't going to be in that situation, what relevance is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

A list of jobs where you will be 'under pressure':
Management
Accounting
Marketing
Legal
Compliance
Sales
Trading
Tax
Fin'l Planning and Analysis
Audit
Operations
CEO/CFO/COO/CIO/CTO, and I'm leaving out about 500 more.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. An off-the-wall question may allow you to find out how a guy reacts under pressure, but if they aren't going to be in that situation, what relevance is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

A list of jobs where you will be 'under pressure':

Legal


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying you can't find out anything from a silly hypo. I'm saying that you can find out more from a hypo directed at a person's job.

What hypo is more useful for a lawyer position that you are interviewing candidates for:

1) How many ping pong balls fit in a 747?

2) Your client just received a demand letter from company X. Outline your course of action.

Both questions test the ability to think under pressure. But don't you think one of those questions is more useful than the other?