4 ms·
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the 4-hour test anecdote. But I think most people here would agree a warm body has more potential for harm th
by pedanticfreak 16y ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the 4-hour test anecdote. But I think most people here would agree a warm body has more potential for harm than a cold seat when it comes to software developers. However you want to ensure you don't get a problem employee, whether it's with 4-hour tests or whatever, it is definitely a good practice regardless of how badly you need to hire someone.
Also, I completely believe that it's too hard to find good developers. I'm not sure if I've just been unfortunate due to industry or geography, but I know very few people I can recommend with confidence. And I have seen all kinds of mediocrity trying to pass as software developers. The places I have seen are the stuff TheDailyWTF is made of.
- bugsy 16y agoThe point he was making with a 4 hr programming test is that it is a complete waste of time. It doesn't take a 4 hr test to separate the wheat from the chaff unless the interviewer knows nothing at all.
- pedanticfreak 16y agoA multiple choice test isn't the best way. But asking someone to write a real piece of software over a 4 hour period (a 'test' if you will) would be an extremely good interviewing method. Especially if you did it in something like EtherPad and can review the person's thought process afterward. Regardless, I completely disagree that you can completely vet someone over a cup of coffee. Especially for highly competitive positions. That might be a good screening interview, but that is not enough to make a final hiring decision unless the person is already recommended.