> Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer.
TFA notes that because of lack of interview prep material in 2004, even when the author knew the question before-hand, it took them days to arrive at an optimal answer. And then it dawned on them that everyone else at the job fair, who may be seeing a question for the first time, only had 15 mins in a pressure-cooker situation to solve it.
TFA also notes that the author intentionally misled the interviewer as if they were solving the puzzle then and there: I casually explained how I could simply use a mathematical formula to calculate the sum of 1 to n (like, who doesn’t know the sum(1 to n) formula?) and compare that to the sum of the integers in the array. I slowly wrote out the solution I had come up with over days of thinking about the problem, being sure to pause periodically as if I was figuring it out for the first time. I talked through my thinking and made sure I had all the proper error checking in place. I double and triple checked my syntax. My handwritten code was perfect.
I understand that I just don't consider it cheating despite their reaction during the interview. I'm not going by any formal definition of "cheating" here. But this person took the question as a practice question, not with the knowledge that it will be asked. They also did the work on proving and understanding it.
Let's put it another way. If you take an exam after practicing with any kind of practice questions (something that has been done since the dawn of time and the education system) and happen to run into the same questions in the real exam, was that cheating or better targeted learning? Or if you find out about a job from a friend who works there, is it cheating because you have a significant insider advantage over people who never knew about the job?
In my opinion true cheating would have been made up of a) someone feeding them the real questions and/or b) someone feeding them the answers. It involves an unwillingness to put in effort and a premeditation that I didn't see in the story. This person was indeed in a conflict of interest but I wouldn't call them "a cheater".
P.S. If I were in that interview I would have provided the full answer almost instantly, not needing any kind of hesitation to "simulate" the thinking process. I know the answer without any relation to the interview. So there could be 2 outcomes: a) I get unfairly excluded under the suspicion of cheating justifying the need to fake the thinking to avoid this or b) I would have passed to the next stage making that whole charade effectively inconsequential.
Gotcha. Btw, I'm personally in agreement with you, as that's how I think about it all, too. TFA wasn't, and I merely attempted to point out why.
GP's claim that TFA might be over-exaggerating it a bit for marketing purposes may also be correct, given that it was authored by an exec at a recruitment firm.
I won't lie to someone's face but I've deliberately misled gatekeepers hundreds of times in order to grab the opportunity to deliver excellent work. People are judgy and scared, and we all know the exchange rate between false positives and false negatives is a farce, and when it comes to my ability, you're damn right I know better than they do. The idea that I have a moral obligation to gift them decisions about my future is laughable. I've never had any complaints and I've never lost a minute's sleep. If they don't like me after they've known me more than 45 minutes, they can put me in review and fire me. I won't cry about it.
> Preparing for this kind of question isn't cheating as long as you understood the answer.
TFA notes that because of lack of interview prep material in 2004, even when the author knew the question before-hand, it took them days to arrive at an optimal answer. And then it dawned on them that everyone else at the job fair, who may be seeing a question for the first time, only had 15 mins in a pressure-cooker situation to solve it.
TFA also notes that the author intentionally misled the interviewer as if they were solving the puzzle then and there: I casually explained how I could simply use a mathematical formula to calculate the sum of 1 to n (like, who doesn’t know the sum(1 to n) formula?) and compare that to the sum of the integers in the array. I slowly wrote out the solution I had come up with over days of thinking about the problem, being sure to pause periodically as if I was figuring it out for the first time. I talked through my thinking and made sure I had all the proper error checking in place. I double and triple checked my syntax. My handwritten code was perfect.