4 ms·

The problem is that you have to have some way to evaluate someone's skill level relatively quickly. Take home assignments will never work. Part time work, or

The problem is that you have to have some way to evaluate someone's skill level relatively quickly. Take home assignments will never work. Part time work, or contracting work until you're satisfied is going to be even worse from the perspective of a job searcher. Imagine you get a new job that pays half of what your last job did and then you get dismissed at the end of 3 months and have to restart your search. I don't understand all the fuss. Whiteboard interviews are unpleasant, sure, but I've done a lot of them and they're not that bad.

lj3 10y ago
> Imagine you get a new job that pays half of what your last job did and then you get dismissed at the end of 3 months and have to restart your search. I'd take that. You're still getting paid for your work instead of spending months searching with no income. It also gives you a chance to see who you're working with, who your boss is and the state of the code base you'll be spending the next several years of your life on. You don't get any of that in a whiteboard interview.
- watwut 10y ago
  That form of interview would make company loose on employed applicants. It would also be expensive in case there are more applicants then positions - or you would be back to normal interviews. Also, imagine competing with multiple other people for three minths over which one will stay after three months and who will have to search again. I can easily see how toxic it all could become.
- nolemurs 10y ago
  I mean, this is fine if you're unemployed already. If you've got a job already though, I'm not sure quitting that for a lower paying multi-month interview process is terribly appealing. Most of the best candidates who can pick and choose jobs won't choose to do that, so a company requiring that is going to be really limiting their options.
  - lj3 10y ago
    If you already have a job, the likelihood you're going to go through the normal hiring channels is small anyway. There's no reason you couldn't have one hiring process for those you're trying to woo away from other companies and one hiring process for those who may have faced a layoff or whose startup just collapsed.
    - taco_emoji 10y ago
      Or you just have one that works for both and save yourself a lot of headache?
      - lj3 10y ago
        > Or you just have one that works for both And that is? > and save yourself a lot of headache? Which headache are you referring to?
Retric 10y ago
Little reason to pay people less during the testing phase. However, people who have a job are less interested in working for you when it's conditional which reduces the size and thus quality of your applicant pool.
amorphid 10y ago
I don't want a temp to hire job. If you put me in than situation, even if I take it, if a better job comes along, I'm going to leave. If I want to freelance, I'm going to charge you twice the effective hourly of my last job.
SilasX 10y ago
Most professions have solved it: some really tough, relatively objective, centrally-administered exam that's a strong sign of knowing some minimal competency. Then, point to the authenticated results instead of going through that at each employer.
- derefr 10y ago
  Yep. I'm terribly confused why the programming "trade" doesn't have this. Various orgs have attempted to build one, but they're all so easy/rote that they don't actually deliver on that "minimal competency" promise, so nobody cares about the associated credentials. A real test of this would most likely have to involve a live, observed simulation of real work, so it'd be somewhat expensive to run the testing centers. But a credential that actually meant something would pay for itself, because it could be earned in place of other less-specific credentials that cost a whole lot more (e.g. a college degree.)
- dudul 10y ago
  Isn't it what a college degree is supposed to represent? I'm not saying they are what you are talking about, but that they are meant to be such objective exam.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    Not really. They're correlated but colleges do not coordinate on the exact same tests for the final exams, nor even what specific classes you're expected to have. (In some ways, that's a good thing -- colleges should have variety on what specifically they teach.) So it's not objective, and it may not meet security standards -- one university may do the honor system and not bother to actively stop cheating, while others may not trust that as a mechanism. Usually, professions have some test that you need to pass in addition to getting the degree. You have to pass the Bar exam after getting a law degree, the EIT exam after getting an engineering degree (then FE after 4 years under a PE), you have board exams after completing med or pharmacy school , there are actuary/accountancy exams after those degrees, etc. They serve a more orthogonal role to the degree, in proving mastery of a more specific body of knowledge.

lj3 10y ago

> Imagine you get a new job that pays half of what your last job did and then you get dismissed at the end of 3 months and have to restart your search. I'd take that. You're still getting paid for your work instead of spending months searching with no income. It also gives you a chance to see who you're working with, who your boss is and the state of the code base you'll be spending the next several years of your life on. You don't get any of that in a whiteboard interview.

watwut 10y ago
That form of interview would make company loose on employed applicants. It would also be expensive in case there are more applicants then positions - or you would be back to normal interviews. Also, imagine competing with multiple other people for three minths over which one will stay after three months and who will have to search again. I can easily see how toxic it all could become.
nolemurs 10y ago
I mean, this is fine if you're unemployed already. If you've got a job already though, I'm not sure quitting that for a lower paying multi-month interview process is terribly appealing. Most of the best candidates who can pick and choose jobs won't choose to do that, so a company requiring that is going to be really limiting their options.
- lj3 10y ago
  If you already have a job, the likelihood you're going to go through the normal hiring channels is small anyway. There's no reason you couldn't have one hiring process for those you're trying to woo away from other companies and one hiring process for those who may have faced a layoff or whose startup just collapsed.
  - taco_emoji 10y ago
    Or you just have one that works for both and save yourself a lot of headache?
    - lj3 10y ago
      > Or you just have one that works for both And that is? > and save yourself a lot of headache? Which headache are you referring to?

Retric 10y ago

Little reason to pay people less during the testing phase. However, people who have a job are less interested in working for you when it's conditional which reduces the size and thus quality of your applicant pool.

amorphid 10y ago

I don't want a temp to hire job. If you put me in than situation, even if I take it, if a better job comes along, I'm going to leave. If I want to freelance, I'm going to charge you twice the effective hourly of my last job.

SilasX 10y ago

Most professions have solved it: some really tough, relatively objective, centrally-administered exam that's a strong sign of knowing some minimal competency. Then, point to the authenticated results instead of going through that at each employer.

derefr 10y ago
Yep. I'm terribly confused why the programming "trade" doesn't have this. Various orgs have attempted to build one, but they're all so easy/rote that they don't actually deliver on that "minimal competency" promise, so nobody cares about the associated credentials. A real test of this would most likely have to involve a live, observed simulation of real work, so it'd be somewhat expensive to run the testing centers. But a credential that actually meant something would pay for itself, because it could be earned in place of other less-specific credentials that cost a whole lot more (e.g. a college degree.)
dudul 10y ago
Isn't it what a college degree is supposed to represent? I'm not saying they are what you are talking about, but that they are meant to be such objective exam.
- SilasX 10y ago
  Not really. They're correlated but colleges do not coordinate on the exact same tests for the final exams, nor even what specific classes you're expected to have. (In some ways, that's a good thing -- colleges should have variety on what specifically they teach.) So it's not objective, and it may not meet security standards -- one university may do the honor system and not bother to actively stop cheating, while others may not trust that as a mechanism. Usually, professions have some test that you need to pass in addition to getting the degree. You have to pass the Bar exam after getting a law degree, the EIT exam after getting an engineering degree (then FE after 4 years under a PE), you have board exams after completing med or pharmacy school , there are actuary/accountancy exams after those degrees, etc. They serve a more orthogonal role to the degree, in proving mastery of a more specific body of knowledge.