3 ms·
This does a nice job of explaining why it's not a good solution. For the company, it does not measure any kind of communication or collaboration ability (which
by stmw 9y ago
This does a nice job of explaining why it's not a good solution. For the company, it does not measure any kind of communication or collaboration ability (which is so important for programming). For the candidate, it does not give her/him any more information about people at the company or provide a positive, interesting experience.
As an engineer, you work with other humans first and machines second. Platforms like HackerRank seem to miss that, while better ones like interviewing.io put it front and center.
- drdrey 9y agoHi, OP here. Good point about the lack of interaction with people at the company, I did not consider that. I'm not familiar with interviewing.io, what's the hook?
- leeny 9y agoHey founder of interviewing.io here (saw we were mentioned and figured I'd jump in). We provide engineers with free, live (and anonymous) interview practice. If you do well, you get fast-tracked at top companies. I also agree with the lack of interaction being a problem. I've always thought about this in the context of value symmetry. If you are expecting people to put time into a coding assignment, you have to give them something useful back... especially in a market where good engineers are the ones who are scarce, not jobs.
- aero-002 9y agoit's amazing how people of different companies just come together to discuss issues and how to solve them online. One of the things I love about the Internet
- user5994461 9y agoA code screening doesn't need to measure communication. It only needs to measure basic coding ability. You can either write fizzbuzz in a reasonable amount of time or you can't. There will be plenty of opportunities to evaluate communication during the other stages of the interview.
- stuaxo 9y agoFuck it, don't bother with any job that uses these things. It's lazy on behalf on the employers.
- analognoise 9y agoI'd agree with you, but you have to interview probably 400/500 people, all with passable resumes, just to find basic competence (let alone the skills you might really need). What if you're talking about interviewing thousands of people, a number of which are passable on paper? It's a search problem, not laziness.
- user5994461 9y agoIt's not lazy and it's great for employees too. When I change jobs, I can't schedule bazillions of 1h phone screening on top on my work time at my current company, only for the interviewer to not show up or realize they don't really have a position available. I'd rather have a one hour test from home, whenever I want.