These discussions are always frustrating, because both sides have perfectly sensible points. From the employers' side: They really really really do get many ca

These discussions are always frustrating, because both sides have perfectly sensible points. From the employers' side: They really really really do get many candidates who cannot program at all. I've been on the hiring side and seen the applications, and the amount of worthless non-programmers out there is high. And it's not just for entry-level posts -- plenty of these people have a decade of experience and titles with "Senior" in them. A simple "can you write code" filter is absolutely essential for a hiring manager not to spend all their time interviewing terrible junk candidates. From the developer's side: If they're any good at all, they really really really can get hired by a company they want to work for very quickly and with little effort, and so their motivation to jump through hoops is going to be low. If ten companies want to hire me, and two of them want me to spend half a day doing coding problems, well, guess who I'm going to get back to last/never. The employers aren't stupid. The devs being interviewed aren't stupid. Everyone has totally sensible priorities. So this really just comes down to individual situations. If you as an employer are having a hard time finding people and you're requiring a coding test... maybe quit requiring it, see if you get a broader applicant pool. If you as a developer are having a hard time finding a job and are rejecting employers that require a test... well, suck it up and do some of the tests. But if a developer is happily employed or an employer is able to find good devs, well, maybe you've hit a good compromise point for now, but be willing to re-evaluate in the future.