Strangest and most bizzare work interview question and answer!

[VEGETA]

Hi guys,

We all survived many interviews but there are always THAT strange odd question which is not only off-topic but just so damn strange... I think you know what I mean, and I will start this by showing mine. So basically, just state the question and your answer to it.

Q: How many cows does Canada have?
A: I don't know since it is not famous of having cows, but Switzerland has 600,000 cows. I won't give a guess answer so if you need one, I will have to do research for it.


Now please share yours!

[vk6zgo]

Hi guys,

We all survived many interviews but there are always THAT strange odd question which is not only off-topic but just so damn strange... I think you know what I mean, and I will start this by showing mine. So basically, just state the question and your answer to it.

Q: How many cows does Canada have?
A: I don't know since it is not famous of having cows, but Switzerland has 600,000 cows. I won't give a guess answer so if you need one, I will have to do research for it.


Now please share yours!

I wonder what this cow obsession is all about!

Not an interview question,but I have recently seen a promo for a TV show which states that "All the cows in the world face in the same direction"!

It is patently untrue, as you only have to drive into the country to see cows in a field facing all sorts of directions.

Apparently, someone did a study from looking at Google Earth to make this assertion, putting it down to a "Magnetic sense"  .

Googling, you get the barefaced assertion on some sites, but on others they weasel out a bit, & say "when they are moving in herds".

All of which leads me to suggest a good answer to the question " How many cows does Canada have?" might be:-

"Dunno,but they are all facing North!"

[EEVblog]

I had an interview once where the interviewer sat down and just sat there and said nothing and just stared at me.
I thought cool, I'll play this game, and stared back and smiled without saying a word. I won, he spoke first after about a minute.

[metrologist]

Why should I hire you?
Because I am God and can walk on water.

[Rick Law]

Hi guys,

We all survived many interviews but there are always THAT strange odd question which is not only off-topic but just so damn strange... I think you know what I mean, and I will start this by showing mine. So basically, just state the question and your answer to it.

Q: How many cows does Canada have?
A: I don't know since it is not famous of having cows, but Switzerland has 600,000 cows. I won't give a guess answer so if you need one, I will have to do research for it.


Now please share yours!

This is from one of Bill Gates early books (1980-1990) on Microsoft management style/techniques.  I think the book title is "The Microsoft Way" but I am not positive.  20+ years ago memory, so, if memory serves:

The example Gates used in his book was "How many gas stations are in the United States?"  Depending on answer and if appropriate, followed by "How did you come up with that answer?"  In his book, he explained that he is not interested in the exact answer but instead interested in how the candidate reacts to such question, and if the candidate manages to find a reasonable way to deduce an answer - or not.

I too have use variation of such question when I interviewed candidates.

[T3sl4co1l]

As with all shitty interview questions, they're actually asking if you can estimate, and if so, provide an example.

You quite explicitly stated that, no, you cannot, and won't even try.  Fair enough.

(Shitty interview questions, in general, are also asking if you can read between the lines.)

A typical solution would read:
Canada is about 10M people. (Underestimate?)
A person eats about a pound a day of beef (over?) and a gallon of milk (over?).
(Remember 10 milk makes 1 cheese, and cheese is in a lot of stuff, like pizza.  If a person eats 0.1 pound of cheese, that's about 1 gallon.  Oh, and a gallon is about 10 pounds.)
A cow makes about 1000 pounds of beef (slightly over), or 1 gallon/day of milk (under?).  So a cow can feed 1000 people at once when slaughtered, or 1 person/day when milked.
Still need to convert cow mass to rate.  It probably takes about a year to raise a cow, which is a half* of 1000 days.  So again the rate is about 1 cow per person.

*A logarithmic half, i.e., sqrt(10)/10 or 0.316.  But such precision is not allowed in the estimate.

So 10M people fed by 20M cows seems reasonable.

Note this doesn't count exports.  Estimating that would be a different matter.

One could niggle that "cows" were asked for, in which case only milk would apply (steers are slaughtered, and cows when they're too old).  I think... IANARancher.

Checking, http://www.agr.gc.ca/redmeat/rpt/tbl40_eng.htm says 12 million head of cattle in 2014.  Not bad.  Canada's population is 35 million, so the human/cow ratio was estimated wrong.  (A case of reaching the right answer from the wrong premises.  An estimate is an estimate!)

Tim

[EEVblog]

The example Gates used in his book was "How many gas stations are in the United States?"  Depending on answer and if appropriate, followed by "How did you come up with that answer?"  In his book, he explained that he is not interested in the exact answer but instead interested in how the candidate reacts to such question, and if the candidate manages to find a reasonable way to deduce an answer - or not.

Yes, it's usually about the reaction. i.e. Did  they react right away, and how so, or did they freeze and look dumbfounded (even if answering later).

[EEVblog]

I was once asked what my favourite movie was, I of course snapped back with Back To The Future.
He said he was looking to see if I was swayed by recent popular social opinion (Forest Gump was the hit that year, and answering such deemed a fail  )

[Rick Law]

I was once asked what my favourite movie was, I of course snapped back with Back To The Future.
He said he was looking to see if I was swayed by recent popular social opinion (Forest Gump was the hit that year, and answering such deemed a fail  )

That kinds of question is rather a compliment.  I had thought those kinds of questions went by the way side because now hiring for work-life long is rare.

In today's hiring for projects and job ends with the project, it is far more important what you know now and what you can do immediately.  But, back in the days when one's first college job could last decades or perhaps even until retirement, it was more important to discern the candidate's attributes - not what a candidate can do now but to find out the candidate's potential to be more.

That they were asking you about a movie shows they were interested in you as a person - a compliment.

I am no management guru.  I am now retired, but looking back I personally like to use "odd questions" to discern how the candidate is as a person. Odd questions get the candidate off guard and thus more likely to informative.

[Ampera]

There aren't any cows in Canada, they are all holograms.

[VEGETA]

As Dave said, it is about reaction and how you deal with such questions when more senior people around.

[Rick Law]

As Dave said, it is about reaction and how you deal with such questions when more senior people around.

It is about the reaction, but not just about the reaction.

Follow up questions can give information about how the candidate thinks.  Questions such as: "I can understand you don't know how many gas stations are in the USA.  If I give you a day, how would you find out?"  Knowing how the candidate would approach something unknown is an important factor.

When it is not hiring merely for a project, what you are is more important than what you can do now.

There was a discussion on this forum some time ago regarding hiring and I expressed my view that I would pick a military academy graduate over an otherwise equally qualified "regular" university graduate.  That is because their being a military academy grad made a very loud statement about who they are: someone you can count on and someone who is no idiot.  Just the process of applying for the academy (West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy) send the student through stuff that most college-bound student would be unprepared for.

When it is not merely "just for a project", what the person is made of counts and counts a lot and "odd ball" questions can reveal a lot beyond the immediate reactions.

Payscale.com "Best Universites and Colleges by Salary Potential" for bachelors degree perhaps also reflects my sentiment:
MIT ranks #2
Princeton ranks #3
Stanford ranks #5
West Point ranks #6
US Naval Academy ranks #7
US Air Force Academy ties with U of Penn both rank #8
Harvard ranks #10
UC Berkeley ranks #26
Virginia Military Institute (VMI) ranks #36

_{Reference: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors}

[dimkasta]

Nothing out of the ordinary for my interviews.

 But most annoying q for me was the rather cliche
"How do you see youself in 5 years"

I would love to have answered with something like...
"Fat"

I actually said something like
"Being an important part of the ... team or leading it if I am given the opportunity"

Big sharks around here in Greece had other ideas for us, but hey... At least I got fat [emoji14]

[grouchobyte]

I was once asked...

We like people who are non-smokers with a sense of humor....How do you feel about that?
I rapidly answered....I guess this means I can't work here
They then asked....so you smoke?

I said..... heck no, I have no sense of humor
They hired me.

@grouchobyte

[mc172]

It is about the reaction, but not just about the reaction.

<snip>

Virginia Military Institute (VMI) ranks #36

_{Reference: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors}

So then, what about the people that have never been in the military and have not been to university, yet design the equipment that the military in your country use in combat and to train with? Are they "prepared"? Prepared for what, though - someone approaching quickly with a machete?


I think the current candidate has been dealt a bad hand. Managers conducting the interviews seem to have a pre-conception that they've got to ask these stupid, impossible to answer questions and don't even understand what answer they are expecting, let alone what the answer consists of. Whether it's to seem intelligent or something, I have no idea. I have no desire to manage anything other than my own power dissipation.

Most of the stupid questions I've been asked are along the lines of:
Why do you want to work for this company - erm, it isn't rocket surgery
Tell me how you interact/work with others - as little as possible please, especially management as they are probably incompetent
Where do you see yourself in x years - dead hopefully
Tell me about a difficult situation you've had to overcome blah blah - er, getting out of bed to come and see your bland mug?
...But I think I've got off quite lightly.

What winds me up is that very rarely do the vast majority of the organisation realise that I'm an engineer. I'm a socially inept recluse and think that everyone else is hell-bent on either talking to me about my feelings or shafting me - both of which are a nightmare situation. I don't want to work here: I work here solely because it's interesting and helps to pay for my test equipment addiction. If I end up with a bit of spare money, it's to pay for the silicon I'm about to blow up.
Inevitably you're first interviewed by someone in HR that has no idea of your potential job description, let alone what you'll be doing, however your answer to some stupid questions like "what colour was the jam on my toast this morning?" decides whether you make it to round 2 or not. It's a load of crap, but I look at it like this: if that's the case then there are probably other, more significant things happening, which may suggest that you might not want to work there.


Something I've noticed is that different companies treat the whole hiring process and subsequent probation period very, very differently. More so than I would have expected - I know each company does things their own way but this attitude is completely unpredictable from my experience. Some see it as you being there from day one means you're there forever, whereas others see it as a true three month trial period whereby if you are a complete clown, you're out.

[rstofer]

What winds me up is that very rarely do the vast majority of the organisation realise that I'm an engineer. I'm a socially inept recluse and think that everyone else is hell-bent on either talking to me about my feelings or shafting me - both of which are a nightmare situation. I don't want to work here: I work here solely because it's interesting and helps to pay for my test equipment addiction. If I end up with a bit of spare money, it's to pay for the silicon I'm about to blow up.
Inevitably you're first interviewed by someone in HR that has no idea of your potential job description, let alone what you'll be doing, however your answer to some stupid questions like "what colour was the jam on my toast this morning?" decides whether you make it to round 2 or not. It's a load of crap, but I look at it like this: if that's the case then there are probably other, more significant things happening, which may suggest that you might not want to work there.

That's where I come out!  I don't have a sense of humor that I am aware of and the only reason I want the job is to make a bunch of money.  So, let's talk about salary and stock options.

And don't tell me about the 'team' approach!  We're all in this separately!

[timb]

What winds me up is that very rarely do the vast majority of the organisation realise that I'm an engineer. I'm a socially inept recluse and think that everyone else is hell-bent on either talking to me about my feelings or shafting me - both of which are a nightmare situation. I don't want to work here: I work here solely because it's interesting and helps to pay for my test equipment addiction. If I end up with a bit of spare money, it's to pay for the silicon I'm about to blow up.
Inevitably you're first interviewed by someone in HR that has no idea of your potential job description, let alone what you'll be doing, however your answer to some stupid questions like "what colour was the jam on my toast this morning?" decides whether you make it to round 2 or not. It's a load of crap, but I look at it like this: if that's the case then there are probably other, more significant things happening, which may suggest that you might not want to work there.

That's where I come out!  I don't have a sense of humor that I am aware of and the only reason I want the job is to make a bunch of money.  So, let's talk about salary and stock options.

And don't tell me about the 'team' approach!  We're all in this separately!

Remember, there's no "Me" in team!

[poida_pie]

I love it when someone says "there is no I in TEAM"
I can just, and only just stop myself from replying "but there is a U in CxNT"

[xrunner]

https://youtu.be/5nNWIVkLJ-M

[Ampera]

I love it when someone says "there is no I in TEAM"
I can just, and only just stop myself from replying "but there is a U in CxNT"

I can't stop imagining a W at the start of any Anker products.

[Brumby]

Reminds me of the computer company - Wang - who came up with a slogan:



Didn't last long I believe.

[German_EE]

A couple of years ago I posted this, maybe it's still valid for this thread:

"Where do you see yourself in X years time"?  The electronics industry changes from month to month and if I could predict five years into the future I would be playing the stock markets instead of attending job interviews.

"What is your greatest weakness"? Well, that would be my passionate desire for Sigorney Weaver's company, either that or my chronic kleptomania.

"What is your greatest strength"? Being able to answer silly interview questions without beating to death the person responsible.

"What is your favorite color"? Blood red, especially when lit by moonlight. Did you know that blood when lit by moonlight is quite black Mr Interviewer?

"What is your favorite computer language"? Solder (thank you Bob Pease)

"You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that"? Because I like freshly roasted tortoise.

And now a real one......................

"The stock control system has crashed, the yard is filled with delivery trucks waiting to load up and nothing is moving in or out of the warehouse, what do you do"? The correct answer here is 'ask for help' because the company needs the system up and running as quickly as possible and delays will cost much more than emergency assistance from a qualified database administrator.

[chris_leyson]

Went for an interview for short term holiday job back in the 70's, civil engineering related. I was asked if I had noticed the time on the square, it's a freemason thing apparently.

[T3sl4co1l]

And now a real one......................

"The stock control system has crashed, the yard is filled with delivery trucks waiting to load up and nothing is moving in or out of the warehouse, what do you do"? The correct answer here is

[Vtile]

I love it when someone says "there is no I in TEAM"

It is a language dependent.

[wraper]

A typical solution would read:
Canada is about 10M people. (Underestimate?)
A person eats about a pound a day of beef (over?) and a gallon of milk (over?).
.....

With such calculations based on guesses you will easily end up 20 times off the real figure. Giving an answer to such a question would mean that you will figure out some BS instead of saying you need to do a research to give a proper answer.

[Rick Law]

It is about the reaction, but not just about the reaction.

<snip>

Virginia Military Institute (VMI) ranks #36

_{Reference: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors}

So then, what about the people that have never been in the military and have not been to university, yet design the equipment that the military in your country use in combat and to train with? Are they "prepared"? Prepared for what, though - someone approaching quickly with a machete?


I think the current candidate has been dealt a bad hand. Managers conducting the interviews seem to have a pre-conception that they've got to ask these stupid, impossible to answer questions and don't even understand what answer they are expecting, let alone what the answer consists of. Whether it's to seem intelligent or something, I have no idea. I have no desire to manage anything other than my own power dissipation.

Most of the stupid questions I've been asked are along the lines of:
Why do you want to work for this company - erm, it isn't rocket surgery
Tell me how you interact/work with others - as little as possible please, especially management as they are probably incompetent
Where do you see yourself in x years - dead hopefully
Tell me about a difficult situation you've had to overcome blah blah - er, getting out of bed to come and see your bland mug?
...But I think I've got off quite lightly.

What winds me up is that very rarely do the vast majority of the organisation realise that I'm an engineer. I'm a socially inept recluse and think that everyone else is hell-bent on either talking to me about my feelings or shafting me - both of which are a nightmare situation. I don't want to work here: I work here solely because it's interesting and helps to pay for my test equipment addiction. If I end up with a bit of spare money, it's to pay for the silicon I'm about to blow up.
Inevitably you're first interviewed by someone in HR that has no idea of your potential job description, let alone what you'll be doing, however your answer to some stupid questions like "what colour was the jam on my toast this morning?" decides whether you make it to round 2 or not. It's a load of crap, but I look at it like this: if that's the case then there are probably other, more significant things happening, which may suggest that you might not want to work there.


Something I've noticed is that different companies treat the whole hiring process and subsequent probation period very, very differently. More so than I would have expected - I know each company does things their own way but this attitude is completely unpredictable from my experience. Some see it as you being there from day one means you're there forever, whereas others see it as a true three month trial period whereby if you are a complete clown, you're out.

^{Re: "So then, what about the people that have never been in the military and have not been to university?"}

You probably missed the first sentence of that paragraph: "...I would pick a military academy graduate over an otherwise equally qualified "regular" university graduate."

With two equally qualified candidate, the one with less distinguishing qualities is out of luck.  So go the saying: "Luck favors the well prepared."

The whole hiring process is not just about "hiring the right guy" but also to minimize the risk of hiring the wrong guy.  Military Academy grads are known quality.  University grads (from accredited universities) are known quality.  The "known" in the phrase "known qualities" is the operative word in reducing risk.  Military Academies also train every student to be leaders, stress handling, character, endurance... whereas most university would not require leadership training and other positive but non-academic attributes.


^{re: "What winds me up is that very rarely do the vast majority of the organisation realise that I'm an engineer. I'm a socially inept recluse and think that everyone else is hell-bent on either talking to me about my feelings or shafting me - both of which are a nightmare situation."}

I think you need to rewrite your resume/CV.  Be bold, make what you want known in the opening sentence: "I am an xxx engineer with extensive experience and a long successful track record (if that is true)..."

In my view, the most important parts of a resume are: (1) the first sentence of the resume, (2) the first sentence of the last paragraph, and (3) the ending sentence.

Since you think everyone is trying to shaft you, they very well may be!  But you must look inward to figure out why you have such effect on people.

^{re: "Inevitably you're first interviewed by someone in HR that has no idea of your potential job description, let alone what you'll be doing..."}

Same problem afflicts the US businesses.  It is horribly inefficient and filters out many good candidates, but it is what it is.  Live with it, that is life.  Fighting it wont get you anywhere.  Find ways to deal with it.

One way to deal with it would be to target very small companies.  You have a high probability of talking directly to the hiring manager, or perhaps even the owner.

^{re: "I don't want to work here: I work here solely because it's interesting and helps to pay for my test equipment addiction"}

To make yourself happy, what you want clearly is right since you are the decision maker there.  But to make the job in to a success, and to make that lasts, it is more important to understand why the company wants you working there!

[grouchobyte]

Of course for management jobs, it gets a little harder

https://youtu.be/1dWMIuipn_c

[josecamoessilva]

Yes, it's usually about the reaction. i.e. Did  they react right away, and how so, or did they freeze and look dumbfounded (even if answering later).

Most of these questions are just "flavor of the day," since someone heard that someone had done it and primate sees, primate does. They are common for business/management jobs because they map directly into a type of business analysis (depending on the question, "ratio chaining" or "hierarchy of effects"). But professional interviewers tend to have objective-driven questions, so this fad too shall pass (as did the "toy puzzle" interviews of the '90s/00s).

To answer the OP, the strangest question I've been asked in a job interview was "How different do you find working in the US from working in Mexico?" to which I answered "I don't know, since I'm from Portugal and never been to Mexico." (It was a headhunting interview, so I didn't care for it anyway, but I would never trust a headhunter to place me who hires such badly prepared interviewers.)

Many moons ago I did some question design for interviews (for the interviewers to use), but they were all of the "here's a problem; this is a proposed solution, what do you think?" where the putative solution had a number of issues and the purpose of the question was to see how many of the issues the candidate could find and correct.

You know, like you do on the job.

[Seekonk]

A friend of mine interviewed a candidate.  The candidate looked around and said this is a nice office, what do I have to do to get it.  He wasn't hired.

[Vtile]

A friend of mine interviewed a candidate.  The candidate looked around and said this is a nice office, what do I have to do to get it.  He wasn't hired.

[chipss]

the qestion was ...
What is the biggest screw up you have ever done at work.....that one had me for a few seconds.

[Seekonk]

It's great to be young and not really care.  I had been pretty much guaranteed a job with a manager who I had worked with in the past and was later employed by. I went to another interview just to keep my options open. I decided to answer every question honestly just for fun. I hadn't heard back from them after a couple weeks so I called one of the engineers I had interviewed with.  He said they hadn't filled the position and he thought I was a good match, but they weren't going to hire me. He wasn't supposed to say anything, but thought some info would help me in future interviews. The report came back that I was too much of a maverick and had a general disregard for the abilities of management. And they say interviewers never get it right.

[Cerebus]

Went for an interview for short term holiday job back in the 70's, civil engineering related. I was asked if I had noticed the time on the square, it's a freemason thing apparently.

Is this on the level?

[Rick Law]

the qestion was ...
What is the biggest screw up you have ever done at work.....that one had me for a few seconds.

I always ask that exact question.  It is useful to discern how you deal with mistakes, and are you honest about it.  If you learn a valuable lesson from it, it is not a bad mistake.  My follow up is: "what was the biggest lesson you learn from that?"

For people in leadership position, after the "learning from mistake" related questions, I would also ask: "how much did it cost?"  This one is a loaded question.
The one who answer, hmm, I don't know - this candidate is now near the door.
The one who answer, hmm...  $xxx over budget - this candidate is still in, but...
The one who recognizes the cost of a mistake is beyond just the cost of the project alone, but also recognizes it has an impact to the company is the candidate with the most potential.

You may poopoo that, but think about the Samsung Note 7 battery fire fiasco.  Samsung set up a whole test facility and tested hundreds of machines.  That costed tons of money, but compare to the market damage and damage to the image of the company, building and running that test facility is but tiny.


Everyone in the company should keep in mind that what he/she does is important or he/she would not be there.  As such, failure of that would have an impact beyond the immediate project and project staff, however big or small.  That recognition is important.  Any inkling of that recognition shows this guy is not just a pigeon looking for a hole.


A related question is "What was the biggest crisis you had to resolve?"  The follow up question is a trap: "Oh, wow, that was an interesting one!  How often does it happen?" (or similar)

Crisis will happen, you can't prevent them all.  So, there is no issue with that.  But, a crisis should not repeat.  The candidate should have learned from the first time this crisis occurred, and put in measures to prevent it from repeating.  If the same big crisis happened twice, you are missing something.  By the third time, you are not doing your job right.  If the candidate replies: "Oh, it happens every now and again..."  Unless an explanation followed the comment unsolicited, this guy is an idiot.  He/she never learns, or is simply didn't matter to him/her.  If the unsolicited explanation that followed was "it is a pain, but the cost of fixing it is too high", that would have been acceptable.

[Avacee]

Was once being asked some technical questions which got more and more specific - it was obvious they had a issue with something I had experience of and were hunting for a solution.
It was about 11am and I'd booked the whole day as holiday so wasn't in a rush. Told them I'd clocked what they were doing and if they paid me £500 I'd stay and fix the problem and also give their existing staff some training.
During said training it transpired there never was a vacancy and they just wanted some free consultancy from interviewees. 
I wasn't too bothered as I left there with a monkey in my back pocket and was called back many times 

[VEGETA]

It is worth mentioning that they started with that cow question, THEN they started shooting questions about the actual technical job. It was instrumentation planning engineer and I am a Mechatronics engineer.

To tell you the truth, that odd question started-up my brain very well and one way or another helped me in the rest of the interview xD. I got the job as well!

[T3sl4co1l]

A typical solution would read:
Canada is about 10M people. (Underestimate?)
A person eats about a pound a day of beef (over?) and a gallon of milk (over?).
.....

With such calculations based on guesses you will easily end up 20 times off the real figure. Giving an answer to such a question would mean that you will figure out some BS instead of saying you need to do a research to give a proper answer.

20 times?  See-- it's a quite accurate method, much better than guessing!

I mean, if the answer could be literally any natural number, it could be 1, it could be 1,213,796,659, it could be 2, it could be near infinity!

Getting within a factor of 20 is an improbably good guess!

Tim

[BrianHG]

[BrianHG]

[BrianHG]

[Electro Detective]

Strange and bizarre questions resulted in Leon's interview going slightly south in 'Blade Runner'   

[VK3DRB]

This is bizarre but true.

About 3 years ago I was to interview a software engineer. He failed to turn up. He phoned about an hour and a half later to say he could not get off the train at the nearby station because a fat lady was blocking his way and the doors closed before he could get off. He got to the next station and ran to a cab to take him to the interview. He discovered his phone was gone so he had no address. He got out of the cab and retraced his steps, finding the phone in the middle of the road where cars had run over it. He sadly made his way home and looked up our number on his PC.

He asked for another interview. I almost said, "don't worry" but gave him the benefit of the doubt. At the interview, he brought in the phone that the cars had ran over, but I suspected he had hit it with a hammer as an alibi. He showed a technical document he had written. He was from China, had been here about 10 years but his grammar was perfect, better than that of most Australian born engineers (which isn't saying much). It raised suspicions. Even so, he passed a logical thinking test I gave him and he got to the second interview stage.

At the second interview he asked the weirdest question ever: "Can you please check my referees AFTER I get the job, rather than before?" But we checked his references before and they were impressive.

We gave him the job. He turned out to be one of the best engineers I had the pleasure of working with in over 30 years. Very, very smart, and a terrific colleague in that he is a deep thinker with a great personality -  very patient, humble, friendly and generous. His aptitude, attitude, abilities and work ethic were exemplary. One in a million, IMO.

Sadly, I said goodbye to him and everyone else just two days ago. I just left the medical electronics industry to take up another role as an electronic design engineer involving the space industry . To borrow a phrase from the Godfather, I got an offer I couldn't refuse. Even so, I will be keeping in contact with that software engineer and a number of other great people I worked with.

When I was interviewed for the new job, I did say I am the only normal electronic engineer I have ever met. I got the job.

[VK3DRB]

Worst job interview ever involving Steve Jobs at Apple, from the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley"...

[Landrew2390]

I was interviewing for a job in facilities maintenance and got the two following questions, "How do you feel about the sight of your own blood" and "Does handling dangerous animals cause you anxiety?"

I was being hired as an electrician and I'm not sure the purpose behind the questions, but I guess they liked my answers and gave me the job.  I spent two years there and neither one of those situations came up.

[Rerouter]

"how do you feel about the sight of your own blood" and
"Does handling dangerous animals cause you anxiety?"

I can 100% understand the purpose behind those questions, but i work in bus and truck electronics, bus bodybuilders like to leave hidden screws and razor sharp metal edges behind the dashboard, so i'm well acquainted with the color of my own blood, as for the animals, its generally insect infestations, but there have been 2 snakes.

[VEGETA]

I think the person good for a job should have what they call "soft skills". It is exactly like when Harvey interviewed Mike, first Harvey said that he wanted people to think on their feet not some idiot douche Harvard graduate!

This is EXACTLY what good employers do. All candidates will have a degree and all of them knows how to work with MS Excel... Also, they know how to start an induction motor both the old and the modern way. Also, memorizing op-amp configurations is not really a skill, google is for that. >>> now what is really important is the other skills and personality.

For my employers, I think they saw the Mike Ross in me xD. 

[Housedad]

"Do you have any problems with watching someone eat?"

"Only if they are disgusting pigs"

[Halcyon]

I'm a strong believer of asking questions which are relevant to the job or that speak directly about the character of a person. Not these arbitrary questions which have no "wrong" answer. Questions which have nothing to do with anything are the sign of a bad interviewer/manager who probably did nothing more than Google "interview questions" the night before. I personally wouldn't want to work for someone like that.

I have no doubt some of these interviewers think they are akin to Psychologists. Nothing can be further from the truth.

[Sredni]

I have no doubt some of these interviewers think they are akin to Psychologists. Nothing can be further from the truth.

And even if they were, psychology is not a real science.  ;-]
They are just modern day witchdoctors.
I have always had the impression most "HR" interviewers had just read the Junior Woodchucks Guidebook and were convinced they have the skill to read personalities like they are Freud. (BTW, neither Freud could do that).

Please, stick to chicken entrails, it's quicker and gives the same results.
And you can eat the chicken, after the interview.

[wraper]

A typical solution would read:
Canada is about 10M people. (Underestimate?)
A person eats about a pound a day of beef (over?) and a gallon of milk (over?).
.....

With such calculations based on guesses you will easily end up 20 times off the real figure. Giving an answer to such a question would mean that you will figure out some BS instead of saying you need to do a research to give a proper answer.

20 times?  See-- it's a quite accurate method, much better than guessing!

I mean, if the answer could be literally any natural number, it could be 1, it could be 1,213,796,659, it could be 2, it could be near infinity!

Getting within a factor of 20 is an improbably good guess!

Tim

If calculating purely milk cows you need to guess how much milk do people drink, how much milk one cow gives, how long one cow lives and young replacement cow grows, how much milk goes into different products like yogurt, milk powder, butter, chocolate, whatever (even glues). Guess more than just milk sold as is. That is without export and import.

[Kuro]

I have no doubt some of these interviewers think they are akin to Psychologists. Nothing can be further from the truth.

And even if they were, psychology is not a real science.  ;-]
They are just modern day witchdoctors.

No, they're just smart enough to leave the result of the interview vague enough so they can interprete it as they like and hire whichever person is most to their personal liking, the liking of the superior or whatever. I witnessed the preparation of a job interview for department at my previous employer, and the questions were made exactly to match a certain candidate which the manager hoped to get. He didn't like the other candidates (too old, female etc). He'd made up is mind in the practical exam first round, but internal rules forced him to invite at least 5 people for an interview.

The same trick was used to grant contracts (was a public company and rules are normally very strict regarding fair competition). To get the favourite candidate, a specific feature of the hard/software was listed as a must (even if we never would use it).

[vodka]

I have no doubt some of these interviewers think they are akin to Psychologists. Nothing can be further from the truth.

And even if they were, psychology is not a real science.  ;-]
They are just modern day witchdoctors.

No, they're just smart enough to leave the result of the interview vague enough so they can interprete it as they like and hire whichever person is most to their personal liking, the liking of the superior or whatever. I witnessed the preparation of a job interview for department at my previous employer, and the questions were made exactly to match a certain candidate which the manager hoped to get. He didn't like the other candidates (too old, female etc). He'd made up is mind in the practical exam first round, but internal rules forced him to invite at least 5 people for an interview.

The same trick was used to grant contracts (was a public company and rules are normally very strict regarding fair competition). To get the favourite candidate, a specific feature of the hard/software was listed as a must (even if we never would use it).

I give the sensation  that when the question of interview match  with a cadidate and the boss o manager engage the sight on him very fast without looking at to other.
That has bad signal .Here these sorts of behaviour is called "enchufados" (plugged).  These consist that the managers or  the bosses have to put to friend or son from somebody on a determinate place of the corporation. For not  be so sassy, they treat the interviews.

[Cerebus]

At the second interview he asked the weirdest question ever: "Can you please check my referees AFTER I get the job, rather than before?" But we checked his references before and they were impressive.

Why ? Here in Blighty it's pretty normal to to not take up references until after a written job offer has been made and make a written job offer "subject to contract and satisfactory references". Otherwise you're going to alert their current employer that they're looking for a new job, which many candidates will not want, for many perfectly good reasons, and exhaust the goodwill of referees in general by asking them for references more times than are strictly necessary.

As it is, I don't put much store in references anyway. Too much opportunity for the reference to be inaccurate because of varying factors including avoiding saying bad things for liability avoidance reasons, avoiding saying good things because the candidates previous manager is an evil lying bastard who doesn't want to lose someone, to HR departments issuing bland boilerplace references based on some magic score from collected annual appraisal forms.

[Brumby]

The same trick was used to grant contracts (was a public company and rules are normally very strict regarding fair competition). To get the favourite candidate, a specific feature of the hard/software was listed as a must (even if we never would use it).

Just like the product information sheets for someone's widget ... which include a cut and paste paragraph for people to stick into the project BOM list so that their widget matches the specifications perfectly.

[vodka]

I was interviewing for a job in facilities maintenance and got the two following questions, "How do you feel about the sight of your own blood" and "Does handling dangerous animals cause you anxiety?"

I was being hired as an electrician and I'm not sure the purpose behind the questions, but I guess they liked my answers and gave me the job.  I spent two years there and neither one of those situations came up.

.

Q:How do you feel about the sight of your own blood?

A:
https://youtu.be/Y8YP65RX1-I?t=1m19s

Do you hire me ?

[vodka]

At the second interview he asked the weirdest question ever: "Can you please check my referees AFTER I get the job, rather than before?" But we checked his references before and they were impressive.

Why ? Here in Blighty it's pretty normal to to not take up references until after a written job offer has been made and make a written job offer "subject to contract and satisfactory references". Otherwise you're going to alert their current employer that they're looking for a new job, which many candidates will not want, for many perfectly good reasons, and exhaust the goodwill of referees in general by asking them for references more times than are strictly necessary.

As it is, I don't put much store in references anyway. Too much opportunity for the reference to be inaccurate because of varying factors including avoiding saying bad things for liability avoidance reasons, avoiding saying good things because the candidates previous manager is an evil lying bastard who doesn't want to lose someone, to HR departments issuing bland boilerplace references based on some magic score from collected annual appraisal forms.

By logic  before hiring , the corporation  investigate to candidate and  if he seems trustworthy the corporation catch him unless that the UK corporation have a rescind  article.

[Cerebus]

By logic  before hiring , the corporation  investigate to candidate and  if he seems trustworthy the corporation catch him unless that the UK corporation have a rescind  article.

I literally, and I suspect that I'm speaking for some other people here too, cannot understand what you're trying to say.

[Landrew2390]

Q:How do you feel about the sight of your own blood?

A:
https://youtu.be/Y8YP65RX1-I?t=1m19s

Do you hire me ?

Considering I found parts of two dead bodies and was shot at on one occasion while working that job, you'd probably fit right in.  The money was really good, but I decided it wasn't worth the risk.  I quit after 16 months.

[moz]

Q: How many cows does Canada have?

I've always wanted to be asked a question like that but never have. Working as a programmer I have spent a great deal of time in meetings where questions like this are asked entirely genuinely by people who expect to hold me to the answers.

"we want a softwares"
"Excellent. I write software."
"How long will it take?"
"that depends on what it has to do"
"we need it by the end of June"

So having a question like that in a job interview... most likely it's management by fad but ten years behind the times. Just wait for the company laser tag team-building exercise.

The only really strange questions I've had in job interviews have been about things they haven't advertised. My current role was listed as "experienced Delphi developer" so the interview was naturally about embedded C development. Unsurprisingly, I've done no Delphi development in the 3+ years since I started here.

[Delta]

Interviewer: "So what would you say is your worst attribute?"

Me: "My honesty."

I: "Well I don't think honesty is a negative attribute, in fact, I think it's a big positive."

M: "I don't give a flying fuck what you think."

[VK3DRB]

At the second interview he asked the weirdest question ever: "Can you please check my referees AFTER I get the job, rather than before?" But we checked his references before and they were impressive.

Why ? Here in Blighty it's pretty normal to to not take up references until after a written job offer has been made and make a written job offer "subject to contract and satisfactory references". Otherwise you're going to alert their current employer that they're looking for a new job, which many candidates will not want, for many perfectly good reasons, and exhaust the goodwill of referees in general by asking them for references more times than are strictly necessary.

As it is, I don't put much store in references anyway. Too much opportunity for the reference to be inaccurate because of varying factors including avoiding saying bad things for liability avoidance reasons, avoiding saying good things because the candidates previous manager is an evil lying bastard who doesn't want to lose someone, to HR departments issuing bland boilerplace references based on some magic score from collected annual appraisal forms.

Blighty? Never heard of it so I Googled it. We call England "Pommyland", a land full of Poms. The etymology of Poms is debatable. The most popular (which is in fact wrong) is Prisoner Of Mother England. The most likely is Pom is a short form of Pomegranate, because that the was colour the fair skinned British convicts turned as they arrived in this sunburnt country in the 1800's. But up until the 1850's, new arrivals were called "new chums". We never hear the term "new chum" these days. The young people have no idea what it means because our schools do not teach Australian history and most, including the education department, don't care about our rich and colourful history. Well, I learnt something new today - Blighty.

I have always been suspicious of references. After all, they would generally pick their friends. Furthermore, if you have worked for a place for a long time where there is low turnover, the number and quality of references would be slim. An electronic engineer who reported to me up until recently got a terrific job in Switzerland. Even though I was his manager, I offered to be a reference. The Swiss company never asked for any references. Apparently they don't bother with them there as a general rule. In Australia, you are always asked for references.

Years ago I was called as a reference to one of the most hopeless dim-witted "engineers" I have ever come across (he was also a thief of company property and was fired). I told the truth, as it was. I was not going to lie to get this character a job. Besides, your own integrity would be on the line. I say it like it is. In the majority of cases, that would be favourable to the job seeker because most engineers and technicians I have worked with have been really good.

[Harb]

Not a Job interview, but I once got asked if I could reduce my Quote on a big job any further to get closer to the opposition.........
I said No
I got the job on the spot and he said If I said yes it would be obvious I didn't understand the magnitude of what I was quoting for and he would have made me walk.......sometimes it pays to play hardball.

Sadly I have lost a few also, but got to sit back and watch the winning bidder fall on their arses lol 

[BradC]

Not a Job interview, but I once got asked if I could reduce my Quote on a big job any further to get closer to the opposition.........
I said No

I used to get that a lot. I sat down with a client one day and explained that my price was both my "best Sunday price" and my only price. If he wanted to play those games then next time I was happy to submit a grossly inflated figure and let him haggle me down so he could walk away feeling like he'd "won". Never got a quibble again, and word got around town pretty quick.

[matts-uk]

Military Academies also train every student to be leaders, stress handling, character, endurance... whereas most university would not require leadership training and other positive but non-academic attributes.

That's great but those positive attributes can be had from a variety of other sources.  As you say, Military training instils certain things - Regimentation, arrogance, the belief that everyone should share the same values, high regard for authority and maintaining the status quo.  So sure, if you want a conformist, with a narrow view of the World, hire the Military.

Living near a Military town I have had my share of them.  I remember one particularly earnest project manager.  He was completely flummoxed by an unassuming bloke in the technical team, who arrived late every morning, sat on the loo for a couple hours reading printouts, before telling the rest of us how to clear the snag list and going home early.  The PM spent most of his time barking at everyone for not working exactly how he would like them to, eventually disappeared up his own backside and had a nervous breakdown. 

Since you think everyone is trying to shaft you, they very well may be!  But you must look inward to figure out why you have such effect on people.

If you think how everyone might shaft you, you are a critical thinker.  If you think everyone is trying to shaft you, that is paranoia :0

HR departments do not like any type of conflict.  Engineers arguing the merits of competing technical solutions completely confuses them.  I once got a very steely look from the HR rep when I answered a question, "Well, I wish I could solve all my problems just by talking to people but computers don't do compromise, in my experience."

To answer the original questions

Q: "How many cows in Canada?"
A: "I do not know, how many cows are there in Canada?"

My favourite question.
Q: "What frustrates you?"
A: Thinks, Open ended questions in interviews is what frustrates me.

[VK3DRB]

One question I ask candidates is along the lines of:

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts. You have no circuit diagrams, service manual or electrical test tools. One of the machines has a fault which is in any one of its 100 parts. The fault is always present in the faulty part when power is on. Powering off the machines, removing and replacing any number of parts, powering the machines back on and checking for the fault, takes an average of 10 minutes all up.

Your manager has given you the job to find the fault as quickly as possible. He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

[RoGeorge]

In theory, one hour, in practice, one day, 'cause keeping track of 100 parts might be a daunting task.
Am I hired?

 

[Rerouter]

Your manager has given you the job to find the fault as quickly as possible. He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

well this is the point where there is a catch "any number of parts", so the logical approximation would be swap 50 of them between machines on the first go, if the fault remains, you now only have 50 left to check, and so on. taking 10 (50), 20 (25), 30 (12/13), 40 (6/7), 50, (3/4), 60 (1/2), 70 (1/1) minutes, so a little over an hour + a 1.2x modifier for shit happens. (this is the same approach i take to finding options in eeproms,

[Delta]

One question I ask candidates is along the lines of:

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts. You have no circuit diagrams, service manual or electrical test tools. One of the machines has a fault which is in any one of its 100 parts. The fault is always present in the faulty part when power is on. Powering off the machines, removing and replacing any number of parts, powering the machines back on and checking for the fault, takes an average of 10 minutes all up.

Your manager has given you the job to find the fault as quickly as possible. He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

One hour twenty minutes.

The half-split method was by far the most important concept I have ever been taught.

[Cerebus]

One question I ask candidates is along the lines of:

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts. You have no circuit diagrams, service manual or electrical test tools. One of the machines has a fault which is in any one of its 100 parts. The fault is always present in the faulty part when power is on. Powering off the machines, removing and replacing any number of parts, powering the machines back on and checking for the fault, takes an average of 10 minutes all up.

Your manager has given you the job to find the fault as quickly as possible. He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

Great question if you want to hire a mathematician or possibly a programmer, but a lousy question if you want to hire anybody practical because the question's assumption that what would in real life an O(n^m) operation can be reduced to an O(1) operation is about as unrealistic as assumptions in mathematical models can get. A practical person would immediately trip at the "Hold on, that sounds ridiculous" point and, even if they have the innate maths ability to solve the question quickly or recognise it as a binary search, would be distracted by thinking "This guy/gal hasn't a clue how the real world works, do I want to have to work for them?". The only time I'd ask this if I was hiring an engineer was if the answer I was hoping for was "Your assumption is crazy".

[Brumby]

One question I ask candidates is along the lines of:

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts. You have no circuit diagrams, service manual or electrical test tools. One of the machines has a fault which is in any one of its 100 parts. The fault is always present in the faulty part when power is on. Powering off the machines, removing and replacing any number of parts, powering the machines back on and checking for the fault, takes an average of 10 minutes all up.

Your manager has given you the job to find the fault as quickly as possible. He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

Great question if you want to hire a mathematician or possibly a programmer, but a lousy question if you want to hire anybody practical because the question's assumption that what would in real life an O(n^m) operation can be reduced to an O(1) operation is about as unrealistic as assumptions in mathematical models can get. A practical person would immediately trip at the "Hold on, that sounds ridiculous" point and, even if they have the innate maths ability to solve the question quickly or recognise it as a binary search, would be distracted by thinking "This guy/gal hasn't a clue how the real world works, do I want to have to work for them?". The only time I'd ask this if I was hiring an engineer was if the answer I was hoping for was "Your assumption is crazy".

Before getting too critical, I would establish the context of this question.

That will have a rather LARGE effect on the sort of answers that could be offered.

[VK3DRB]

Great question if you want to hire a mathematician or possibly a programmer, but a lousy question if you want to hire anybody practical because the question's assumption that what would in real life an O(n^m) operation can be reduced to an O(1) operation is about as unrealistic as assumptions in mathematical models can get. A practical person would immediately trip at the "Hold on, that sounds ridiculous" point and, even if they have the innate maths ability to solve the question quickly or recognise it as a binary search, would be distracted by thinking "This guy/gal hasn't a clue how the real world works, do I want to have to work for them?". The only time I'd ask this if I was hiring an engineer was if the answer I was hoping for was "Your assumption is crazy".

In actual fact the answers I get are quite interesting. Seventy minutes is the best answer, although 80 is OK if you assume some initial fault observance time, but putting in a fudge factor is also acceptable. One applicant said 1000 minutes, because you have to swap out each board one at a time. Not good. When we did a reference check back to the US where he had worked, the response was not good either. He did not get the job.

In my opinion, good engineers are highly practical people. In fact, I find impractical engineers to be pretty hopeless, especially if they are given the job of designing a serviceable machine. That is why often the best engineers are those who have also worked as service technicians - debugging boards or fixing machines in the field for example. That is a plus in winning a job. I have seen some really terrible machines designed by mechanical engineers or electronics engineers who had no real world practical experience, managed by people who have no clue either.

A good practical question: "Why would you back annotate a PCB?"
Another good practical question: "Why would you NOT back annotate a PCB?"

[moz]

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts. ... Powering off the machines, removing and replacing any number of parts, powering the machines back on and checking for the fault, takes an average of 10 minutes all up.

I would ask: what is the probability of breaking something when changing a part? Then: how many of those replaceable parts are necessary for the machine to function. Can we open it up, leave the covers and fasteners on the desk, and expect it to work? Of those 100 replaceable parts, probably about 20 are necessary for it to work and the other 80 hold everything else together.

I've never seen a machine where taking it apart, fiddling with it, then putting it back together could never ever break anything. The converse is also true: taking it apart and putting it back together might clear the fault. Or as AvE says: if it's not broken we'll keep fixing it until it is.

[vk6zgo]

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts. ... Powering off the machines, removing and replacing any number of parts, powering the machines back on and checking for the fault, takes an average of 10 minutes all up.

I would ask: what is the probability of breaking something when changing a part? Then: how many of those replaceable parts are necessary for the machine to function. Can we open it up, leave the covers and fasteners on the desk, and expect it to work? Of those 100 replaceable parts, probably about 20 are necessary for it to work and the other 80 hold everything else together.

I've never seen a machine where taking it apart, fiddling with it, then putting it back together could never ever break anything. The converse is also true: taking it apart and putting it back together might clear the fault. Or as AvE says: if it's not broken we'll keep fixing it until it is.

My reaction,too-------So easy to end up with two faulty machines!

No test gear & so on is a pretty good approximation of where a home mechanic is when fixing a particular type of car the first time, yet people do that all the time, without the aid of a spare "good" car!

After all, we have our eyes, ears, sense of smell, & that of touch.

The first thing I would do is, first, listen (if the thing works at all), then take off the covers & look,   sniff, & feel(with the power off).

[RoGeorge]

Seventy minutes is the best answer

The shortest time is 60, and the longest is 70, because one can not replace a fraction of a component. One need to work with integers. Example: 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 1.
Each comma has a cost of 10 minutes, so 60 minutes for the above example. The probability of finding the defect in 60 minutes is almost fifty-fifty (43.75%).

Why do you consider 70 to be the best answer?

[mc172]

You have a two identical machines and in each of them are 100 replaceable parts
...
He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

Two weeks.

[Fgrir]

Your manager has given you the job to find the fault as quickly as possible. He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

It would take me 5 minutes max to show the two machines to a tech and ask them to find the faulty part.  Maybe another minute to explain the binary search method if they don't already understand it.  Then I'd get back to engineering work, which is what I assume you'd want me to be doing unless I'm sitting in the wrong interview room...

[Tinkerer]

Seventy minutes is the best answer

The shortest time is 60, and the longest is 70, because one can not replace a fraction of a component. One need to work with integers. Example: 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 1.
Each comma has a cost of 10 minutes, so 60 minutes for the above example. The probability of finding the defect in 60 minutes is almost fifty-fifty (43.75%).

Why do you consider 70 to be the best answer?

This is in fact called the binary search method(although im sure people call it other things). You take a half each time to narrow things down quickly.


When on interviews, I usually end up asking the question most of my interviewers find very interesting and very direct:
"Is there any reason you would not hire me?"

The most interesting one I got asked:
"Why is a manhole cover round?"
I forget the exact answer, but something along the lines of the shape being the strongest that it cant fall in on itself or something. Pretty sure microsoft or someone also asked this question.

[VK3DRB]

Seventy minutes is the best answer

The shortest time is 60, and the longest is 70, because one can not replace a fraction of a component. One need to work with integers. Example: 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 1.
Each comma has a cost of 10 minutes, so 60 minutes for the above example. The probability of finding the defect in 60 minutes is almost fifty-fifty (43.75%).

Why do you consider 70 to be the best answer?

You don't want the shortest time, you want the shortest guaranteed time.

[RoGeorge]

Thanks!

[Brumby]

Seventy minutes is the best answer

The shortest time is 60, and the longest is 70, because one can not replace a fraction of a component. One need to work with integers. Example: 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 1.
Each comma has a cost of 10 minutes, so 60 minutes for the above example. The probability of finding the defect in 60 minutes is almost fifty-fifty (43.75%).

Why do you consider 70 to be the best answer?

You don't want the shortest time, you want the shortest guaranteed time.

Indeed ... the answer to that question is given in the original question:

He asks you, "If you start working on it now, how much time do you need to definitely have identified the faulty part?

... and it's missing a detail like that which could impact your prospects.

[moz]

You don't want the shortest time, you want the shortest guaranteed time.

... and it's missing a detail like that which could impact your prospects.

I'm not a big fan of abstract math puzzles in interviews for that reason. It's too easy for a candidate to miss key details or indeed the entire point of the question. It's hard to compare candidates when one does the binary search answer and correctly ignores all the irrelevant engineering/technical aspects in favour of the logic puzzle, another tries to do that but gets one word wrong so their answer is incorrect, while another treats it as a real-world problem like Fgrir did and says "hand it to a technician", and that's before you even get into the engineering answers.

My habit is to test the actual skills that I want, and let the managers do whatever makes them happy. Give me a set of candidates and I will put each through the same set of practical tests, carefully noting both their ability to solve the problems and how they talked me through what they did, as well as what questions they asked. Most of what I do is computerised so that's pretty easy, but I have also seen technicians subjected to "assemble this kit" type tests where they had to make the LED blink and then modify the circuit so it blinked slower. I have a set of programming tests that run inside a virtual machine so that everyone gets the same setup, and each step starts with a fresh project so failure or divergence at one step doesn't break future steps.

In that sense my most bizarre ever interview question happened before the interview technically started. I was given an address and company name, but not the phone number of the person interviewing me. When I got to the address there was a big construction site and no sign of a building that could conceivably provide an office for me to work in. I rang the recruiter and they knew nothing, so I started walking back to the train station. As I got to the station they rang back and said "oh yes, they say everyone does that, their office is around behind the construction you have to go down the side street a few hundred metres down and ...". I got on the train. An employer who will hide information even after being made aware that it's missing is a big red flag. Admittedly in this case the employer was also unsuitable for other reasons and had gone out of their way to hide those. Second red flag. Even if I had been willing to work for them despite my misgivings, those two actions would have ruled them out.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I had a strange and unfortunate interview once with a recruiting firm.
I will name and shame them: Manpower.

I was working for government and our department had been 'corporatised' and was in the process of being privatised. So basically under a high degree of change.
Because of this I threw out my resume to a few recruiters and see what they could come up with.
Manpower responded and asked me to come in for an interview.
Anyway the actual questions weren't strange but their interest in my current job was.
I gave them more detail about my current job than was probably necessary and in the meantime they gave me scant information about any jobs they could offer me.

So a few weeks later a new guy started work with me, and pretty soon I realised he didn't know shit.
I recall being gobsmacked when he didn't know the difference between a PNP and an NPN BJT.
So I put him on the easy stuff and tried to start him slowly.

About 2 weeks later I was called into a meeting.
This resulted in me being made redundant and escorted from the building. (by a friend so it wasn't heavy or anything)(I guess the $10000 pay rise I had just forced out of them had something to do with it)
That was a shock, I wasn't expecting that I could be replaced by this fool, but I was.

I wasn't cross at my the new guy, he just wanted a job.
I was only cross at the behaviour of the recruiter in wasting my time to sneakily work out from me what skill set was required to replace me.
Obviously at the interview I should have further stressed 'a knowledge of electronics is required'.

[moz]

Anyway the actual questions weren't strange but their interest in my current job was. I gave them more detail about my current job than was probably necessary and in the meantime they gave me scant information about any jobs they could offer me.

This is absolutely typical of recruiters. They will also want your referees so they can make sales calls to them. After a while I got used to telling recruiters as little as possible about anyone other than myself. At least in Oz it's quite acceptable to put "referee details will be provided to potential employers only", and to list past employers by company name only. Some of them are used to the game and take it in good humour, others will regard failure to provide those "leads" as a black mark against you. OTOH, your referees,  current and past employers may get very sick of being called by recruiters trying to push candidates to replace you and try to find out what other vacancies they have.

[RGB255_0_0]

.

[VEGETA]

Well, it is not a really bad answer.

In the end, I find the interviewers tend to use their power to have fun and treat you like they are light years better and know everything.

[james_s]

The most interesting one I got asked:
"Why is a manhole cover round?"
I forget the exact answer, but something along the lines of the shape being the strongest that it cant fall in on itself or something. Pretty sure microsoft or someone also asked this question.

I always liked that one for some reason. It's pretty simple when you think about it, a round cover can be dropped into place and no matter the orientation it will fit perfectly and it can never fall down through the hole. There is no other shape that matches this criteria, anything asymmetrical will only fit in one of several correct orientations and most can fall into the hole. 

[T3sl4co1l]

I always liked that one for some reason. It's pretty simple when you think about it, a round cover can be dropped into place and no matter the orientation it will fit perfectly and it can never fall down through the hole. There is no other shape that matches this criteria, anything asymmetrical will only fit in one of several correct orientations and most can fall into the hole.

There are many shapes, which are convex, and not circles, which will not fall in the hole -- shapes of constant width.  But, as you note, there are many fewer* of these, than of general shapes; and there are vastly fewer shapes that meet the symmetry criteria, namely just the circle.

(*Since there are infinite shapes, this isn't a count, but an ordinal.  Yes, you can rank the sizes of infinities!)

Tim

[james_s]

Yes I suppose if you decided for some reason that the cover should not be planar that does considerably expand the number of shapes that fit the criteria. I think most would agree though that a circle is the logical solution to the criteria of a real-world manhole cover. It's fully symmetrical, you can drop it in the hole in absolutely any orientation and it fill easily plunk into place.

There are some other advantages that come to mind after additional thought. The fitting it sets into can be cut from a pipe or cast and manufactured with a single simple machining operation. Tolerances need not be particularly precise to ensure a good fit. The lack of sharp corners minimizes the likelihood of stress fractures and means there are no sharp corners to drop on one's foot. It may also come up favorably in terms of raw material required relative to the load bearing ability or useful area of the opening.

[Cerebus]

(*Since there are infinite shapes, this isn't a count, but an ordinal.  Yes, you can rank the sizes of infinities!)

I wouldn't like to guess whether the set of all planar shapes is countably infinite, or uncountably infinite. I would be prepared to guess that if you were limited to combinations of lines that we'd be talking about a countable infinity, but curves would make it uncountable but that is just a guess. Where's a topological number theorist when you need one? Oh, sure, tap a keg of beer and you're covered in them, but if you want to ask a question...

[KE5FX]

"Your current employer is a fairly small company, isn't it?"

"Yes, that's right, a few dozen employees."

"If we hire you, what will it do to them when you leave?"

"Um... "

[Someone]

Yes I suppose if you decided for some reason that the cover should not be planar that does considerably expand the number of shapes that fit the criteria. I think most would agree though that a circle is the logical solution to the criteria of a real-world manhole cover.

The constant width shapes that fulfil the requirement of not falling down the hole are explicitly planar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_of_constant_width

[moz]

"If we hire you, what will it do to them when you leave?"

"They will be able to hire a cheaper worker to replace me, as they have repeatedly said that I am over-qualified and more experienced than they need."

Translation: my boss suffers from the "anything I don't understand is easy" fallacy.

[james_s]

Now that's neat. I especially like the oddly shaped roller, it never occurred to me that you could do that, not that there are many reasons to make a roller that is not round.

[Cerebus]

Now that's neat. I especially like the oddly shaped roller, it never occurred to me that you could do that, not that there are many reasons to make a roller that is not round.

The classic example of that is the current UK 20p and 50p coins, polygonal so they are easy to recognise, constant curve so that they will cleanly roll down a chute in the coin mechanism of a vending machine or coin counter. The new £1 coin is 12 sided and is currently making its way into circulation.

[james_s]

That's neat, I'll ask my friend to bring me a few of those coins next time he's out this way.

[Neilm]

The new £1 coin also has what they refer to as a hologram on it. From one angle it looks like "£", from another it looks like "1"

[james_s]

US currency is rather boring compared to much of the world but as long as I can trade it for cool stuff I'm not going to complain too much. At least our paper money is starting to get some color.