5 ms·

Interesting and the first I’ve heard of this and the first confirmation I’ve heard that cost-wise it’s not egregious to do so. It still seems strange to me to

Interesting and the first I’ve heard of this and the first confirmation I’ve heard that cost-wise it’s not egregious to do so. It still seems strange to me to pay for throwaway work but I can also see how that’s really just my personal sentiment / bias and this is probably a pretty good and balanced approach.

pc86 8y ago
Except some of us already have full-time jobs and don't want to spend the weekend working on quizzes, whether it's paid or not. And unless you're very generous with timing taking a day off of work can be a logistical issue, not just a pay issue. This type of interview self-selects for people with fewer family/non-work obligations, who are willing and able to spend their free time still programming.
- pault 8y ago
  Sometimes you might have to inconvenience yourself to improve your career.
  - Clubber 8y ago
    Ya, if you paid double market rates, I'd do it. I suspect most people who do this sort of thing probably pay market or worse.
- dfee 8y ago
  Cost of doing business. Not willing to put in your free time? No need to worry about getting a new job. Are you also job hunting at work, doing interviews on your employers time, etc?
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    You're ignoring the context of the comment you're replying to. That guy already has a good job. Another company is trying to poach him. Why would he, or any other qualified and gainfully employed candidate go through that unnecessary homework bullshit for a company that's trying to recruit them? The company has its priorities misplaced. They should be trying to convince the candidate to join them, not putting up barriers to their most qualified candidates.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      I would totally do homework bullshit for a company/opportunity/compensation that I saw as “better” than what I have currently, but would not do so for anything else.
      - Clubber 8y ago
        So your salary + $1? How much better? I'm curious. I'd probably go through this for maybe 50% above market rates.
        ryandrake 8y ago
        Not sure! I guess it depends on how much homework.
        dfee 8y ago
        Insane. Let’s say it’s half that and you make $100k a year. You wouldn’t put in 2 hours for an extra 25k/yr? I mean this isn’t a lottery, and hopefully you’ve reasoned there will be a high probability of getting hired; say 50%. So then the expected value of your time is $6.25k/hr. Go, take the moral high ground, and don’t do the homework. That helps rational minded folk achieve an even higher hit rate.
        Clubber 8y ago
        I'm already at top dollar in my area and have been for years. Maybe that's why I despise it so, I have nothing to gain from the trouble. I haven't had to do a cold interview since 1999. There are much better and less humiliating ways to get top dollar. Work your ass off and build reputation is the biggest one. If you are a company and you have to call a recruiter, you're already behind. Putting people through that stuff just makes it worse.
bgribble 8y ago
We aren't paying for the work-product, we're paying for the time and inconvenience. It's more to show respect for the candidate's time than to actually "hire" them to do an interview. I mean, even "discount" recruiting platforms like Hired and Vettery will cost 5-figures when we make a hire through them, and traditional recruiters often charge 20% or more of the new-hire's first year salary. A few hundred bucks to get some more information about a prospective coworker is cheap.

pc86 8y ago

Except some of us already have full-time jobs and don't want to spend the weekend working on quizzes, whether it's paid or not. And unless you're very generous with timing taking a day off of work can be a logistical issue, not just a pay issue. This type of interview self-selects for people with fewer family/non-work obligations, who are willing and able to spend their free time still programming.

pault 8y ago
Sometimes you might have to inconvenience yourself to improve your career.
- Clubber 8y ago
  Ya, if you paid double market rates, I'd do it. I suspect most people who do this sort of thing probably pay market or worse.
dfee 8y ago
Cost of doing business. Not willing to put in your free time? No need to worry about getting a new job. Are you also job hunting at work, doing interviews on your employers time, etc?
- gamblor956 8y ago
  You're ignoring the context of the comment you're replying to. That guy already has a good job. Another company is trying to poach him. Why would he, or any other qualified and gainfully employed candidate go through that unnecessary homework bullshit for a company that's trying to recruit them? The company has its priorities misplaced. They should be trying to convince the candidate to join them, not putting up barriers to their most qualified candidates.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I would totally do homework bullshit for a company/opportunity/compensation that I saw as “better” than what I have currently, but would not do so for anything else.
    - Clubber 8y ago
      So your salary + $1? How much better? I'm curious. I'd probably go through this for maybe 50% above market rates.
      - ryandrake 8y ago
        Not sure! I guess it depends on how much homework.
      - dfee 8y ago
        Insane. Let’s say it’s half that and you make $100k a year. You wouldn’t put in 2 hours for an extra 25k/yr? I mean this isn’t a lottery, and hopefully you’ve reasoned there will be a high probability of getting hired; say 50%. So then the expected value of your time is $6.25k/hr. Go, take the moral high ground, and don’t do the homework. That helps rational minded folk achieve an even higher hit rate.
        Clubber 8y ago
        I'm already at top dollar in my area and have been for years. Maybe that's why I despise it so, I have nothing to gain from the trouble. I haven't had to do a cold interview since 1999. There are much better and less humiliating ways to get top dollar. Work your ass off and build reputation is the biggest one. If you are a company and you have to call a recruiter, you're already behind. Putting people through that stuff just makes it worse.

bgribble 8y ago

We aren't paying for the work-product, we're paying for the time and inconvenience. It's more to show respect for the candidate's time than to actually "hire" them to do an interview. I mean, even "discount" recruiting platforms like Hired and Vettery will cost 5-figures when we make a hire through them, and traditional recruiters often charge 20% or more of the new-hire's first year salary. A few hundred bucks to get some more information about a prospective coworker is cheap.