I think it's good to write this up - maybe a more formal doc (like a company blog post?) would be good than just a gist, but it's something. I'm not going to ho

I think it's good to write this up - maybe a more formal doc (like a company blog post?) would be good than just a gist, but it's something. I'm not going to hold back, but i'm glad to see Marty wrote this up - a great starting point/conversation piece if nothing else. > The goal by the end is being able to rate the candidate on the position's rubric. I think this is fine, but should be clarified up front in the interview to what the rubric points are, so they can speak specifically to the things that matter to you. Be clear about what you want. Maybe this is already covered in the job posting? I noticed that part is lacking; how the job is presented and "sold" on jobsites; what gets said and all that. > I try to keep any take home exercise to a couple hours >We do two pairing sessions of 2 hours > Depending on the position, we'll have a final technical interview that does a deep dive on technology I think that's a pretty crappy practice. 8-12 hours-ish? unpaid? Do you not care what that means for the interviewee - who may be involved in other interviews and take-home projects as well? I think clearly not. So why would I want to work for a company like that? I'm not saying don't do a technical interview - but have some respect for their life/time. If you want to do extensive interviews, at least pay them. Otherwise, figure out a better/faster technical assessment. > I also love it if one of the pairs is a woman as that'll show how well this person can work with a woman teammate By that logic, do you pair them with a person of color too? or someone who is LGBTQ? How about someone who is overweight, or nearing retirement? It's important a hire get along with other people in the company - but this sounds a lot like discrimination. I would advise removing or at least rethinking this approach and how it is presented. > After the technical interview portion is complete, we typically have a final interview that can cover anything not sufficiently addressed. This is where you'll typically get into job duties, career growth opportunities on the team, compensation and benefits. The candidate will usually have a lot of questions for me at this point. How is this the last conversation and not the first? I outright refuse technical interviews until all of those points above are clearly established so i know it's a match for both of us. Final interviews are classically more like: "hey boss we wanna hire this person, can you talk to them and give them the final pass/fail?" Overall, this reinforces my experience that most companies don't really know how to hire talent. Or maybe they do - and it just makes no consideration for the applicant. But it would be bitter of me to assume companies are simply doing it to be heartless - i think they just lack proper structure around it. It's why I am exploring l337hires.com; an applicant focused approach to tech hiring. But lets see more companies write this sort of thing up. Share how you hire, why you hire, and let others in industry critique and collab on. It's not for everyone - it takes openness, humility and a willingness to be wrong (and to change) before you're willing to share. But for the companies (and interviews) that would be better off for it, this can do everyone a world of good.