3 ms·

> but not actually perform You're trying to measure how they'll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you're trying to get free work from

by monksy 7y ago

> but not actually perform You're trying to measure how they'll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you're trying to get free work from them. (Just a note.. this is on the words you used) > recognize smart people who will do well with whatever they're given, How does a take home coding test that is limited on time, and their own time + stress indicate that they are in that category?

dahart 7y ago
> You’re trying to measure how they’ll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you’re trying to get free work from them. I wish the hyperbole about trying to get free work during an interview would just die already. Nobody is getting free work by interviewing applicants, interviews are costly to most companies, but necessary to grow the team. Just because interviews take time and are difficult and scary doesn’t mean someone is taking advantage of you. Try to put yourself in the company’s shoes — they have to evaluate you one way or the other. How would you do it? A time limited stress test is extremely effective at identifying certain kinds of performers. Obviously being able to solve problems fast is an indicator of a certain kind of smart. This doesn’t identify all smart people, and nobody claimed it did, that’s why a coding test is almost always one part of many in the interview process, and people routinely get hired when passing some parts without passing all the parts.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  I consider it a failure of the company and interviewers if they need more than a few 1hr sessions to determine candidate suitability.
  - cmonnow 7y ago
    Can you name a single company that needs 'more than a few' 1 hr sessions ? Accepted definition of 'few' is at least 3 and usually between 3-5 Most companies have 4 sessions : 1 HR phone, 1 tech phone, 1 tech onsite, 1 HR onsite. But bigger companies (i.e. bigger salary) increase the 'tech onsite' up to 4. Some companies replace one of the tech phone/onsites with a take-home challenge. If you want more money, you gotta beat the other 100 people who also want more money. Simple case of demand and supply.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by monksy 7y ago

dahart 7y ago

> You’re trying to measure how they’ll perform on your work before you hire them? That sounds like you’re trying to get free work from them. I wish the hyperbole about trying to get free work during an interview would just die already. Nobody is getting free work by interviewing applicants, interviews are costly to most companies, but necessary to grow the team. Just because interviews take time and are difficult and scary doesn’t mean someone is taking advantage of you. Try to put yourself in the company’s shoes — they have to evaluate you one way or the other. How would you do it? A time limited stress test is extremely effective at identifying certain kinds of performers. Obviously being able to solve problems fast is an indicator of a certain kind of smart. This doesn’t identify all smart people, and nobody claimed it did, that’s why a coding test is almost always one part of many in the interview process, and people routinely get hired when passing some parts without passing all the parts.

Aeolun 7y ago
I consider it a failure of the company and interviewers if they need more than a few 1hr sessions to determine candidate suitability.
- cmonnow 7y ago
  Can you name a single company that needs 'more than a few' 1 hr sessions ? Accepted definition of 'few' is at least 3 and usually between 3-5 Most companies have 4 sessions : 1 HR phone, 1 tech phone, 1 tech onsite, 1 HR onsite. But bigger companies (i.e. bigger salary) increase the 'tech onsite' up to 4. Some companies replace one of the tech phone/onsites with a take-home challenge. If you want more money, you gotta beat the other 100 people who also want more money. Simple case of demand and supply.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]