Hello guys,
I hope someone can assist me here. I got an interview with a company that develops software for casino games and such. Any one has any tips, ideas, advice, for someone to be interviewed as a potential entry-level quality assurer/software tester.
RS
Jump to PostThe interview is there to determine if you're suitable for the job. If you can't answer the questions to their satisfaction, you have no business working at that company. That's my advice, now if you want something more specific, ask a more specific question.
Jump to Postso?
If you're up to the job you don't need to be told the questions in advance.
If you're not, you have no right to get that job.
Jump to Post>I guess all I want to know is what kind of questions to expect.
Expect questions that test your knowledge and ability to do the job. I could list cookie cutter questions that aren't likely to be asked except by lazy interviewers, but that won't help you with the good …
Jump to PostThe nightmare scenario (for us at least) is that if we help you get the job, you'll be right back here posting your job assignments to help you keep the job.
The only difference being is that you'll be the only one pocketing the $$$ for the effort.
…
The interview is there to determine if you're suitable for the job. If you can't answer the questions to their satisfaction, you have no business working at that company. That's my advice, now if you want something more specific, ask a more specific question.
I see you living up to your reputation...cool.
I guess all I want to know is what kind of questions to expect. I've been to many panel interviews, but never one that's software/programming related.
RS
so?
If you're up to the job you don't need to be told the questions in advance.
If you're not, you have no right to get that job.
>I guess all I want to know is what kind of questions to expect.
Expect questions that test your knowledge and ability to do the job. I could list cookie cutter questions that aren't likely to be asked except by lazy interviewers, but that won't help you with the good questions, which will require you to think on your feet and actually understand what's going on.
In fact, even if you know the "answer" to a cookie cutter question, you might be asked to explain it. I do that occasionally to weed out the cheaters who try to get by on getting the answers to commonly asked questions. That's why I don't put much weight on the whole "know what to expect" thing, because even if you know what to expect, you still have to know your stuff.
Hello guys,
I hope someone can assist me here. I got an interview with a company that develops software for casino games and such. Any one has any tips, ideas, advice, for someone to be interviewed as a potential entry-level quality assurer/software tester.
RS
I think all you have to do is, be confident. Try to sell you skills and make people impressed with your experience.
The nightmare scenario (for us at least) is that if we help you get the job, you'll be right back here posting your job assignments to help you keep the job.
The only difference being is that you'll be the only one pocketing the $$$ for the effort.
Having worked with my fair share of dead weight on projects, no thanks!
> I got an interview with a company that develops software for casino games and such.
So did it come with a job spec?
Job specs are long lists, usually "essential" and "desirable", of things they're looking for in candidates.
Eg.
Essential - 5 years embedded C programming.
Desirable - familiar with CVS or other SCM tool.
In "boom" times, you might get in with 50% of each. In recessionary times (like now perhaps), employers can be a lot more choosy and want 90% of both.
If you don't have a job spec (and they won't give you one), take that as a bad sign. It will be all too easy to get rid of you because you won't be able to counter with the argument "well that isn't the job you hired me to do".
While everyone thinks they are terrific interviewers and can spot the good developers from those who aren't. The fact is that no one can tell whether a person is truly going to make a good developer from an interview. Some people are not quick on their feet when answering questions verbally (particularly in an interview situation) but will run rings around entire teams of developers when placed in a real working environment. Others are terrific BS'ers that really don't know jack, and the people they fool the most are those that think they are the best at weeding the *unsatisfactory* candidates out. Other people think that asking obscure questions about <insert language of choice> will give them information, but in actuality those questions don't tell you squat since 99.9% of the time you don't use or need that particular feature. Still others ask those psychological questions and think they can tell something from that. The fact is that all those people who claim they can tell how good a candidate will be from an interview are fooling themselves.
The fact is that people will hire people they like and those are the places you want to work. Why, because likeable people make for a fun work environment.
The best advice that anyone can give you will be to have an interesting story for every sentence on your resume. Even if they don't ask a question directly off your resume, you can usually twist one of your stories to be an answer to their question. If you are a likeable person, who did not lie on their resume, then you will get the job (unless they interviewed someone they like better).
>If you are a likeable person, who did not lie on their resume, then you will get the job
What a naive statement. :icon_rolleyes: Sure, when I'm interviewing candidates, I take their personality and how well they would mesh with the rest of my team into consideration. If we get along it helps, but that doesn't get them the job unless they also demonstrate the knowledge and ability that's required for it.
>If you are a likeable person, who did not lie on their resume, then you will get the job
What a naive statement. :icon_rolleyes: Sure, when I'm interviewing candidates, I take their personality and how well they would mesh with the rest of my team into consideration. If we get along it helps, but that doesn't get them the job unless they also demonstrate the knowledge and ability that's required for it.
In the interest of not creating a huge run-on sentence with lots of qualifications, I did not restate the obvious, I just covered the bottom line. If the person did not have the qualifications for the position based on their resume then one would be logical to assume that you would not be interviewing them. Thus, I qualified my statement with "who did not lie on their resume". My claim is that if the person talks intelligently about what is on their resume, gives you a good idea of the type of work they have done, you like their style and personality and you get a good feeling that they are who they are trying to represent themselves to be then that's the best you can do.
The only way to truly assess a candidates skills other than their history is to put them on the job and see what they can do. Since that is not practical and we can't read other peoples' minds, any claims of how great someone is at assessing a candidates capability based on an interview are only a little better than delusional. Thus, I will restate the claim I made that you seem to take issue with is that "assuming you are capable of doing the job, the final decision will usually be based how likeable the interviewers find you to be".
As a side note:
The other part of my rant is how I find it funny that people think they can really assess a persons capability by asking usually obscure questions at an interview. I think it's little more than using a crystal ball. However, I think people are very good at assessing whether they would like to work with someone or not.
>If the person did not have the qualifications for the position based on their resume
>then one would be logical to assume that you would not be interviewing them.
One would be wrong in that case. It's easy to get through the preliminary culling processes to the interview and be completely clueless. I cut about half of my interviews short because it's obvious the candidate is woefully unqualified for the job even though their resume is technically accurate.
and 40% of the rest because the candidate either overstated their experience (listing programs used a few times as "skills" for example) or lied by claiming knowledge they simply don't have.
>If you are a likeable person, who did not lie on their resume, then you will get the job
What a naive statement. :icon_rolleyes: Sure, when I'm interviewing candidates, I take their personality and how well they would mesh with the rest of my team into consideration. If we get along it helps, but that doesn't get them the job unless they also demonstrate the knowledge and ability that's required for it.
it would be very helpful if you study about the background of the company you are applying or rather about their feature products or software.
you may visit their web sites, too. :icon_cheesygrin:
i hope this helps.
goodLuck!
I agree that the interview is there to determine if you're suitable for the job. But it is not true; "if you can't answer the questions to their satisfaction, you have no business working at that company". To sell you skills and make people impressed, think about your experience again and find out what can be your strength.
Guys...Look at the dates of the last post.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.
