6 ms·

>I undertook this project after two 30 minute conversations had convinced both parties that there was a fit, and the project was a next step. In this case, I d

>I undertook this project after two 30 minute conversations had convinced both parties that there was a fit, and the project was a next step. In this case, I don't see it as unreasonable, because you didn't have to do the project just to have a shot at someone talking to you in person. I would never do a homework project as the first step in an application process. I would do one as the last step, after I had learned enough about the job and the company to decide that I really wanted it, and they had narrowed down the field to me and a handful of other candidates.

minimaxir 8y ago
> I would never do a homework project as the first step in an application process. I would do one as the last step, after I had learned enough about the job and the company to decide that I really wanted it, and they had narrowed down the field to me and a handful of other candidates. When I was job hunting last year, the steps typically went like this. 1) 30 min phone call 2) Homework 3) Algorithm Exam 4) Onsite I typically got rejected at #3 which means the homework meant nothing.
- TheGRS 8y ago
  Maybe to your experience, but it likely is a filter for others.
  - minimaxir 8y ago
    I have no issues with doing homework as a filter, but a homework plus an algorithm exam for filtering is annoying, especially since the homework is more related to on-job performance and the algorithm exam isn't. (and in my experience, it's never a weighted average of doing well on the HW and doing less-well on the algorithms: it's always pass/fail).
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  >I typically got rejected at #3 which means the homework meant nothing. It got you to step #3, but if I were applying to that company, I would not have done the homework. When they told me of the homework assignment, I would have asked, "assuming I do it, what comes next?" And when they replied "an algorithm exam, followed by an onsite interview", my reply would have been, "homework is the last step, or no thank you." Then again, I have almost two decades of experience and a well-established track record of accomplishments. And I currently have a solid, well-paying job. If I were fresh out of school, trying to land my first programming job, I would probably be more flexible.
  - minimaxir 8y ago
    In disclosure, all the companies were upfront about the full interview process. That said, in this job market, there isn't much leverage to say no to a prospective job or to make demands of the interview process unless you're already a rockstar.
    - rhapsodic 8y ago
      >That said, in this job market, there isn't much leverage to say no to a prospective job or to make demands of the interview process unless you're already a rockstar. I don't consider myself a rockstar, or even a prima donna type who would make "demands" of the interview process. But I'm confident I could find a job fairly quickly without jumping through ridiculous hoops just to get an initial response from a company. From my perspective, the software developer market is still a seller's market. YMMV, of course. Maybe you're in an area where there are more qualified developers than available jobs, and employers have the upper hand to the extent they can pull off bullshit like this.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      This is a great point that gets lost because of the widely held “shortage of engineers” myth. The hiring market is strongly an employer’s market. There is far more talent out there seeking relatively few jobs, so employers can dictate terms pretty much absolutely. If they require a 5 day homework, then it’s “homework or GTFO”. If they require whiteboard hazing, it’s “whiteboard or GTFO”. The last real employee’s-market we had was in the late 90’s!
      - markbnj 8y ago
        > The hiring market is strongly an employer’s market. There is far more talent out there seeking relatively few jobs, so employers can dictate terms pretty much absolutely. Wow, are you in the U.S.? This is pretty much the exact opposite of my experience and perception. I'm sure it must vary somewhat based on your specialty and what kind of work you do.
TheGRS 8y ago
I'm rethinking what I did on my last hiring position. I sent a take-home test that should take about 2-3 hours to those who sent in a decent resume. It filtered out a little over half of the applicants I responded to, as in half didn't respond. It further filtered out a small segment who didn't do very well on the test. A filter is definitely needed to weed out those who are simply casting a wide net, are looking for contract work instead of a FTE and to those whose skills simply do not match what they've purported in their resume. I really can't call everyone who has a decent resume, its way too time consuming. If we had a recruiter then maybe it would be worth it, but not personally. Maybe a take-home quiz that takes like 20-30 minutes would be a good filter instead?
- Clubber 8y ago
  >as in half didn't respond Wouldn't it be funny if the half that didn't respond were the best candidates you heard from, and you threw them away with your take home thing? It's the irony that the thing you did to make sure you got good applicants was the very same thing that turned the best away.
  - TheGRS 8y ago
    For sure, its something I've thought about too, but at the end of the day you need to do something to get from the many down to the one. Gut intuition gets used at some level and I prefer that to be way down the line after we've gathered a lot of data about a candidate. Take home tests also serve as a standardization measurement. Everyone does the same test so we can at least compare candidates to each other on that level. If they don't do the test then its pretty tough to compare them. At some point you need to ask the applicant to do something to prove their worth and interest in the company. Take home tests are only one filter for that and I'm honestly open to others.
  - rhapsodic 8y ago
    >Wouldn't it be funny if the half that didn't respond were the best candidates you heard from, and you threw them away with your take home thing? In my estimation, it's not likely that all of the ones who didn't respond were better than the ones who did, but it's likely that a sizeable portion of them were. They're not going to jump through ridiculous hoops because they don't have to. One time an employer of mine wanted newly hired developers to sign a crazy onerous contract with unbelievably broad and vague non-compete provisions and IP provisions. I told him that the only people who would sign it were people who were desperate for employment, or people without integrity who would sign it without any intent of abiding by it. Neither of which were the types we were looking for. So he relented and we ditched it.

minimaxir 8y ago

> I would never do a homework project as the first step in an application process. I would do one as the last step, after I had learned enough about the job and the company to decide that I really wanted it, and they had narrowed down the field to me and a handful of other candidates. When I was job hunting last year, the steps typically went like this. 1) 30 min phone call 2) Homework 3) Algorithm Exam 4) Onsite I typically got rejected at #3 which means the homework meant nothing.

TheGRS 8y ago
Maybe to your experience, but it likely is a filter for others.
- minimaxir 8y ago
  I have no issues with doing homework as a filter, but a homework plus an algorithm exam for filtering is annoying, especially since the homework is more related to on-job performance and the algorithm exam isn't. (and in my experience, it's never a weighted average of doing well on the HW and doing less-well on the algorithms: it's always pass/fail).
rhapsodic 8y ago
>I typically got rejected at #3 which means the homework meant nothing. It got you to step #3, but if I were applying to that company, I would not have done the homework. When they told me of the homework assignment, I would have asked, "assuming I do it, what comes next?" And when they replied "an algorithm exam, followed by an onsite interview", my reply would have been, "homework is the last step, or no thank you." Then again, I have almost two decades of experience and a well-established track record of accomplishments. And I currently have a solid, well-paying job. If I were fresh out of school, trying to land my first programming job, I would probably be more flexible.
- minimaxir 8y ago
  In disclosure, all the companies were upfront about the full interview process. That said, in this job market, there isn't much leverage to say no to a prospective job or to make demands of the interview process unless you're already a rockstar.
  - rhapsodic 8y ago
    >That said, in this job market, there isn't much leverage to say no to a prospective job or to make demands of the interview process unless you're already a rockstar. I don't consider myself a rockstar, or even a prima donna type who would make "demands" of the interview process. But I'm confident I could find a job fairly quickly without jumping through ridiculous hoops just to get an initial response from a company. From my perspective, the software developer market is still a seller's market. YMMV, of course. Maybe you're in an area where there are more qualified developers than available jobs, and employers have the upper hand to the extent they can pull off bullshit like this.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    This is a great point that gets lost because of the widely held “shortage of engineers” myth. The hiring market is strongly an employer’s market. There is far more talent out there seeking relatively few jobs, so employers can dictate terms pretty much absolutely. If they require a 5 day homework, then it’s “homework or GTFO”. If they require whiteboard hazing, it’s “whiteboard or GTFO”. The last real employee’s-market we had was in the late 90’s!
    - markbnj 8y ago
      > The hiring market is strongly an employer’s market. There is far more talent out there seeking relatively few jobs, so employers can dictate terms pretty much absolutely. Wow, are you in the U.S.? This is pretty much the exact opposite of my experience and perception. I'm sure it must vary somewhat based on your specialty and what kind of work you do.

TheGRS 8y ago

I'm rethinking what I did on my last hiring position. I sent a take-home test that should take about 2-3 hours to those who sent in a decent resume. It filtered out a little over half of the applicants I responded to, as in half didn't respond. It further filtered out a small segment who didn't do very well on the test. A filter is definitely needed to weed out those who are simply casting a wide net, are looking for contract work instead of a FTE and to those whose skills simply do not match what they've purported in their resume. I really can't call everyone who has a decent resume, its way too time consuming. If we had a recruiter then maybe it would be worth it, but not personally. Maybe a take-home quiz that takes like 20-30 minutes would be a good filter instead?

Clubber 8y ago
>as in half didn't respond Wouldn't it be funny if the half that didn't respond were the best candidates you heard from, and you threw them away with your take home thing? It's the irony that the thing you did to make sure you got good applicants was the very same thing that turned the best away.
- TheGRS 8y ago
  For sure, its something I've thought about too, but at the end of the day you need to do something to get from the many down to the one. Gut intuition gets used at some level and I prefer that to be way down the line after we've gathered a lot of data about a candidate. Take home tests also serve as a standardization measurement. Everyone does the same test so we can at least compare candidates to each other on that level. If they don't do the test then its pretty tough to compare them. At some point you need to ask the applicant to do something to prove their worth and interest in the company. Take home tests are only one filter for that and I'm honestly open to others.
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  >Wouldn't it be funny if the half that didn't respond were the best candidates you heard from, and you threw them away with your take home thing? In my estimation, it's not likely that all of the ones who didn't respond were better than the ones who did, but it's likely that a sizeable portion of them were. They're not going to jump through ridiculous hoops because they don't have to. One time an employer of mine wanted newly hired developers to sign a crazy onerous contract with unbelievably broad and vague non-compete provisions and IP provisions. I told him that the only people who would sign it were people who were desperate for employment, or people without integrity who would sign it without any intent of abiding by it. Neither of which were the types we were looking for. So he relented and we ditched it.