3 ms·

By using this method, you exclude candidates that cannot (or are unwilling to) allocate the time necessary to do the assignment, plus the time needed to take ca

by CrLf 11y ago

By using this method, you exclude candidates that cannot (or are unwilling to) allocate the time necessary to do the assignment, plus the time needed to take care of tax-related issues just to be able to write you a receipt. In other words, you are excluding people who have a job. Also, I fail to grasp this idea that potential candidates must prove their worth through numerous hoops to compensate for the interviewers lack of skill in judging character and competence (i.e. seeing through the bullshit). In any hiring process not only the interviewer is interested in avoiding a bad hire, but the candidate is also interested in avoiding a bad employer. Both stand to loose from a bad choice, but that's why even the most strict employment laws allow for an experimental period. Certain hiring requirements tell a lot about the culture of the company. Avoid sending candidates the message that you have a culture of distrust. You may end up loosing the ones you wished to hire.

Ologn 11y ago
> Also, I fail to grasp this idea that potential candidates must prove their worth through numerous hoops to compensate for the interviewers lack of skill in judging character and competence They say: >> It’s very easy for someone to embellish (to put it generously) their resume, and coding trivia can be memorized There are arguments about the efficacy of interviews, but judging technical knowledge is not one of them. If I was hiring for a Java programming position, I might start out with an easier question, like what is the difference between an interface and an abstract class. Or ask what a class was, or an object, or a constructor or method. Or what a static class variable was. Plenty of people with resumes that look good will stumble through these questions, whereas others will give clear answers. Perhaps you can't tell if someone knows all they need to know or can do a good job, but it is certainly possible to see who does not have the level of technical knowledge you want.

by CrLf 11y ago

Ologn 11y ago

> Also, I fail to grasp this idea that potential candidates must prove their worth through numerous hoops to compensate for the interviewers lack of skill in judging character and competence They say: >> It’s very easy for someone to embellish (to put it generously) their resume, and coding trivia can be memorized There are arguments about the efficacy of interviews, but judging technical knowledge is not one of them. If I was hiring for a Java programming position, I might start out with an easier question, like what is the difference between an interface and an abstract class. Or ask what a class was, or an object, or a constructor or method. Or what a static class variable was. Plenty of people with resumes that look good will stumble through these questions, whereas others will give clear answers. Perhaps you can't tell if someone knows all they need to know or can do a good job, but it is certainly possible to see who does not have the level of technical knowledge you want.