4 ms·

Great question. It hasn't come up as a problem so far but given that the problems are pretty open-ended (interact with an API and display the results in the bro

Great question. It hasn't come up as a problem so far but given that the problems are pretty open-ended (interact with an API and display the results in the browser) it's a lot more obvious when you've copied someone else since there's so many possible ways to do this. We also ask candidates to submit a writeup and the expectation is that they'll discuss their solution with the company in the next stage, so if someone cheats, it'll be pretty obvious in that call.

paulcole 8y ago
Why can’t a candidate just have somebody else do the problem and the follow up call? How do you verify identity?
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  Do me a favor and give me your answer to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164600
  - paulcole 8y ago
    I’m not sure if you meant to link to something relevant, but I’ll reply anyway. It should be obvious but having someone use a computer and talk on the phone is much less involved than showing up in person and using an earpiece. Also, I’m not sure how awkward these people normally are, but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious Yet, based on your previous comment, you think the person will be able to BS their way through a conversation with you about code they didn't write and don't understand. I don't see how you can hold both of those positions simultaneously.
      - paulcole 8y ago
        The person who stands in and does the exercise also does the follow up call.
        ubernostrum 8y ago
        Do they also do the on-site interview? Look, I've done a lot of interviews as the interviewer. This attitude that we have to design processes as if there are five hundred quintillion octillions of googolplexes of novemdecillions of cheating lying "fake coders" for every one qualified person is not rooted in reality, nor is the level of paranoia you're displaying. There are perfectly reasonable processes you can use which will catch a cheater if you actually get one. But designing a process entirely around the assumption that everyone is a cheater trying to lie their way into your company is just not useful.
- wgerard 8y ago
  Hey, Jason's co-founder here. In general I think this fear about candidates cheating is mostly over-blown: I don't think it happens anywhere close to the frequency that people worry about it. My counterpoint is usually this: People can cheat on the technical phone screen now. The chances of someone being caught out for doing so are pretty low; "I had a cold" is almost certainly enough to ward off suspicion if you even remember their voice clearly enough to begin with. Further, a discussion about the take-home during the in-person interview (which we highly recommend) will pretty quickly suss out whether someone cheated. There are solutions that purport to solve this cheating problem, but tbh they're really gross in my opinion (and of course, the really motivated cheaters will find a way around it). I refuse to ever install a rootkit on someone's computer in order to catch cheating. Better a thousand guilty people go free, etc. etc.

paulcole 8y ago

Why can’t a candidate just have somebody else do the problem and the follow up call? How do you verify identity?

ubernostrum 8y ago
Do me a favor and give me your answer to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18164600
- paulcole 8y ago
  I’m not sure if you meant to link to something relevant, but I’ll reply anyway. It should be obvious but having someone use a computer and talk on the phone is much less involved than showing up in person and using an earpiece. Also, I’m not sure how awkward these people normally are, but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    but the in-person faker would be astoundingly obvious Yet, based on your previous comment, you think the person will be able to BS their way through a conversation with you about code they didn't write and don't understand. I don't see how you can hold both of those positions simultaneously.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      The person who stands in and does the exercise also does the follow up call.
      - ubernostrum 8y ago
        Do they also do the on-site interview? Look, I've done a lot of interviews as the interviewer. This attitude that we have to design processes as if there are five hundred quintillion octillions of googolplexes of novemdecillions of cheating lying "fake coders" for every one qualified person is not rooted in reality, nor is the level of paranoia you're displaying. There are perfectly reasonable processes you can use which will catch a cheater if you actually get one. But designing a process entirely around the assumption that everyone is a cheater trying to lie their way into your company is just not useful.
wgerard 8y ago
Hey, Jason's co-founder here. In general I think this fear about candidates cheating is mostly over-blown: I don't think it happens anywhere close to the frequency that people worry about it. My counterpoint is usually this: People can cheat on the technical phone screen now. The chances of someone being caught out for doing so are pretty low; "I had a cold" is almost certainly enough to ward off suspicion if you even remember their voice clearly enough to begin with. Further, a discussion about the take-home during the in-person interview (which we highly recommend) will pretty quickly suss out whether someone cheated. There are solutions that purport to solve this cheating problem, but tbh they're really gross in my opinion (and of course, the really motivated cheaters will find a way around it). I refuse to ever install a rootkit on someone's computer in order to catch cheating. Better a thousand guilty people go free, etc. etc.