My thinking is to move off the time and expense of testing candidates from the interview stage to as late in the process as possible. A really though test of a

My thinking is to move off the time and expense of testing candidates from the interview stage to as late in the process as possible. A really though test of a candidate is time consuming and to do it at the interview stage is not fair on the candidates and the company. You can provide any candidate with the full list of what they will be tested on in their first x days so they can decide if the job is for them or not (i.e. everyone is upfront with what is expected). The only problem I see with this approach is Dunning-Kruger effects. My experience in hiring is it is pretty easy to pick candidates suffering from DK by comparing what they say with what they can demonstrated via their work history. It is the more marginal candidates where they seem non-delusional, but where they don’t have a perfect CV. These people are often overlooked by other companies, but they often turn out to be fantastic employees. Taking a chance on them can be a great.