5 ms·

I am a founder of a company that helps companies with screening candidates[0]. I understand the negative response towards this. But I feel there is a balance he

I am a founder of a company that helps companies with screening candidates[0]. I understand the negative response towards this. But I feel there is a balance here: We advice our customers to send smaller problems (~30mins) meant to pre-screen the candidates (without wasting too much of their time). This followed by a phone interview is currently the best funnel we know so far (and we have been working on this problem for years now). [0] https://remoteinterview.io https://remoteinterview.io

pmiller2 8y ago
What would be an example of something at the same level you advise your customers to use?
- asadlionpk 8y ago
  To start with: a variant of FizzBuzz (string manipulation, sorting, fibonacci etc). We then combine this with plagiarism checker and code playback for the employer. Which gives them a pretty good signal if to set up an interview or not.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    That seems reasonable as far as time commitment. But, problems like that typically have about 2-4 ways to code them, and usually 1-2 obvious ways. Not to mention, it’s going to be a max of maybe 25 lines of code. That makes me skeptical of the plagiarism detector, because it seems like it would either not detect much, or it could end up being overly sensitive.
kowdermeister 8y ago
These candidate screening portals that make me code in a web IDE are nightmare to me. My main problem with all of them is that I don't have a chance to talk to an interviewer real time to ask questions, express my thought process or go though the problem together. The time limit is usually harsh, once I needed 5 more extra minutes and the system shut down the test, zero points, but I had it coded 90% and the rest was in my head. Test cases are revealed _after_ the code is submitted (or not even at all) which is the reverse of what happens in real life. They are solving the wrong problem. Yes, hiring is broken, you made it better for employers, but not for candidates. I guess this is what we get for bashing the whiteboard interviewing for years, finally the disruption has arrived.
- asadlionpk 8y ago
  I think some simple tweaks by your employer could have made this system more comfortable for you too: - Like giving ample time to the test and then deciding from the report if to approve or reject. - Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions. I think these cases don't map to unit tests, they serve a different purpose here.
  - kowdermeister 8y ago
    > Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions If that's the case, it's another way to prove my point that these portals are bad. I would expect that the company checks the submitted solutions so there is little reason to write "if (x == 5) return 1" style code if that's what you meant by hardcoded solutions.

pmiller2 8y ago

What would be an example of something at the same level you advise your customers to use?

asadlionpk 8y ago
To start with: a variant of FizzBuzz (string manipulation, sorting, fibonacci etc). We then combine this with plagiarism checker and code playback for the employer. Which gives them a pretty good signal if to set up an interview or not.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  That seems reasonable as far as time commitment. But, problems like that typically have about 2-4 ways to code them, and usually 1-2 obvious ways. Not to mention, it’s going to be a max of maybe 25 lines of code. That makes me skeptical of the plagiarism detector, because it seems like it would either not detect much, or it could end up being overly sensitive.

kowdermeister 8y ago

These candidate screening portals that make me code in a web IDE are nightmare to me. My main problem with all of them is that I don't have a chance to talk to an interviewer real time to ask questions, express my thought process or go though the problem together. The time limit is usually harsh, once I needed 5 more extra minutes and the system shut down the test, zero points, but I had it coded 90% and the rest was in my head. Test cases are revealed _after_ the code is submitted (or not even at all) which is the reverse of what happens in real life. They are solving the wrong problem. Yes, hiring is broken, you made it better for employers, but not for candidates. I guess this is what we get for bashing the whiteboard interviewing for years, finally the disruption has arrived.

asadlionpk 8y ago
I think some simple tweaks by your employer could have made this system more comfortable for you too: - Like giving ample time to the test and then deciding from the report if to approve or reject. - Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions. I think these cases don't map to unit tests, they serve a different purpose here.
- kowdermeister 8y ago
  > Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions If that's the case, it's another way to prove my point that these portals are bad. I would expect that the company checks the submitted solutions so there is little reason to write "if (x == 5) return 1" style code if that's what you meant by hardcoded solutions.