4 ms·

As someone who administers coding exercises to candidates where I work, I can only say that I respond promptly when a candidate says they've completed the exerc

As someone who administers coding exercises to candidates where I work, I can only say that I respond promptly when a candidate says they've completed the exercise if only to let them know I received it. I also encourage them to ask any questions they have and respond promptly to them if they do. The exercise is valuable to us in our decision making process, which is why we request that candidates do it. It's disappointing to hear that basic professionalism isn't as common as it should be - but don't blame the exercise for that. Perhaps instead, breathe a sigh of relief that you won't have to work with people who do not value your time.

eropple 10y ago
> don't blame the exercise for that Yes, blame the exercise for that, because the exercise is fundamentally and inescapably is an attempt to assert a level of power over candidates; instead of studying their Github or just talking to them hiring managers demand that they take on the time-and-effort risk of qualifying themselves to the hirer. Which is really stupid in a seller's market, BTW. But, even past that stupidity, it makes it tenable, in the mind of the evaluator, to blow off the candidate because they have, by accepting it, signaled that they will put up with at least a decent amount of shit coming down the pipe towards them without serious complaint. It's fundamentally dehumanizing hoop-jumping, which creates predictable results, and we should be better than that.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  I've been on both sides of the table. When I did these exercises I found them uncomfortable , but less so than the rest of the interview process. I've never read into it the way that you and many others are. I consider it as a means of quantifying ability. You don't have time pressure, you don't have an interviewer standing over your shoulder whiteboarding with you. I view those as positives - because while I can do those things fine in day to day work, I do horribly at them an interview. That said it's clear that our experiences with this have been very different. * And o
  - eropple 10y ago
    I can do either; I'm a very good talker and a very good programmer, and I'm pretty good on a white board too. But, fundamentally, this is a refusal on the part of the company to invest time in the process (while expecting the candidate to invest hours of their time). You are not operating as either business partners or equals; it's a power play. And that's not humane (and it's stupid besides in a seller's market). I'm good at these tests. That doesn't mean that doing them is economically wise.
throw_away_777 10y ago
It is valuable to you sure, but as a candidate it takes a lot of time. At least with interviews the company is investing an equal amount of time, and I get to learn something about the company. The coding exercise doesn't tell me anything about your company. You are losing out on candidates who don't want to jump through hoops of a coding exercise.

eropple 10y ago

> don't blame the exercise for that Yes, blame the exercise for that, because the exercise is fundamentally and inescapably is an attempt to assert a level of power over candidates; instead of studying their Github or just talking to them hiring managers demand that they take on the time-and-effort risk of qualifying themselves to the hirer. Which is really stupid in a seller's market, BTW. But, even past that stupidity, it makes it tenable, in the mind of the evaluator, to blow off the candidate because they have, by accepting it, signaled that they will put up with at least a decent amount of shit coming down the pipe towards them without serious complaint. It's fundamentally dehumanizing hoop-jumping, which creates predictable results, and we should be better than that.

GrinningFool 10y ago
I've been on both sides of the table. When I did these exercises I found them uncomfortable , but less so than the rest of the interview process. I've never read into it the way that you and many others are. I consider it as a means of quantifying ability. You don't have time pressure, you don't have an interviewer standing over your shoulder whiteboarding with you. I view those as positives - because while I can do those things fine in day to day work, I do horribly at them an interview. That said it's clear that our experiences with this have been very different. * And o
- eropple 10y ago
  I can do either; I'm a very good talker and a very good programmer, and I'm pretty good on a white board too. But, fundamentally, this is a refusal on the part of the company to invest time in the process (while expecting the candidate to invest hours of their time). You are not operating as either business partners or equals; it's a power play. And that's not humane (and it's stupid besides in a seller's market). I'm good at these tests. That doesn't mean that doing them is economically wise.

throw_away_777 10y ago

It is valuable to you sure, but as a candidate it takes a lot of time. At least with interviews the company is investing an equal amount of time, and I get to learn something about the company. The coding exercise doesn't tell me anything about your company. You are losing out on candidates who don't want to jump through hoops of a coding exercise.