6 ms·

Not if you can find others who are just as good. And what's your better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code and not filtering out the good ones

Not if you can find others who are just as good. And what's your better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code and not filtering out the good ones with anxiety?

trowawee 9y ago
Take-home tests. Lower-stress environments for coding tests - working on their own hardware, working remotely, no panel interviews, no actively combative/aggressive interviews. Also, cool aspect of that: all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix.
- tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
  > Take-home tests. But people are already crying over take-home tests being like working for free for the company, and then there's no way to prove they aren't cheating, which is a showstopper. That by itself is definitely not a "better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code". > all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. No for people who can competently handle an onsite interview and don't want hours of extra work at home. > And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix. Maybe you being so disingenuous makes you feel better, but interviews aren't "angry/combative/aggressive" just because someone asks to see some code on a whiteboard.
  - newnewpdro 9y ago
    I've participated in a lot of interviews on both sides of the process. In my experience, the whole process goes a lot smoother when there's a take-home exercise. It turns the in-person interview portion into a technical discussion about a recent mini-project unencumbered by NDAs and trade secrets. If you can't quickly determine if an applicant "cheated" on the take-home exercise through a simple discussion, then you may want to recuse yourself from performing interviews. If an applicant can't make enough time for an appropriately scoped exercise, I think it's likely they're unqualified or they don't value the opportunity enough to make time. Those are undesirable qualities the recruiting/interview process is intended to filter out.
dblohm7 9y ago
I can't believe I just read this. I hope to never work with you.
- tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
  Thanks for adding nothing here. I'm glad I'll never have to work with you, too.

Not if you can find others who are just as good. And what's your better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code and not filtering out the good ones with anxiety?

trowawee 9y ago

Take-home tests. Lower-stress environments for coding tests - working on their own hardware, working remotely, no panel interviews, no actively combative/aggressive interviews. Also, cool aspect of that: all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
> Take-home tests. But people are already crying over take-home tests being like working for free for the company, and then there's no way to prove they aren't cheating, which is a showstopper. That by itself is definitely not a "better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code". > all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. No for people who can competently handle an onsite interview and don't want hours of extra work at home. > And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix. Maybe you being so disingenuous makes you feel better, but interviews aren't "angry/combative/aggressive" just because someone asks to see some code on a whiteboard.
- newnewpdro 9y ago
  I've participated in a lot of interviews on both sides of the process. In my experience, the whole process goes a lot smoother when there's a take-home exercise. It turns the in-person interview portion into a technical discussion about a recent mini-project unencumbered by NDAs and trade secrets. If you can't quickly determine if an applicant "cheated" on the take-home exercise through a simple discussion, then you may want to recuse yourself from performing interviews. If an applicant can't make enough time for an appropriately scoped exercise, I think it's likely they're unqualified or they don't value the opportunity enough to make time. Those are undesirable qualities the recruiting/interview process is intended to filter out.

dblohm7 9y ago

I can't believe I just read this. I hope to never work with you.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
Thanks for adding nothing here. I'm glad I'll never have to work with you, too.