8 ms·

The alternative to a take-home test is on-site interviews with white board problems. These also take (unpaid) time and are timed (you have until the end of the

The alternative to a take-home test is on-site interviews with white board problems. These also take (unpaid) time and are timed (you have until the end of the interview). Doing this part of the interview at-home rather than in-person gives people more schedule flexibility, not less. The total time spent is higher than most interview processes I think, which can be a struggle for some folks. But I do think it's the right tradeoff. Regarding why time taken is an important data point -- we found a strong correlation between people who were able to get good solutions working quickly and people who were able to effectively defend their solutions during the "GoldMine review" in their on-site interview.

jakebasile 7y ago
> The alternative to a take-home test is on-site interviews with white board problems. That's not the only alternative though. Why not use a more humane interview process involving conversation about previous work, ideas about the future, strengths and weaknesses? > The total time spent is higher than most interview processes I think, which can be a struggle for some folks. But I do think it's the right tradeoff. I don't agree but I'm glad you thought about it. I personally think making your interview process more inclusive allows you to get better candidates, as opposed to structuring the process in such a way to exclude those that have different priorities and life choices. > Regarding why time taken is an important data point -- we found a strong correlation between people who were able to get good solutions working quickly and people who were able to effectively defend their solutions during the "GoldMine review" in their on-site interview. Correlation doesn't equal causation though. I also want to point out that if you are expecting someone to "defend" themselves, that means you are on the offensive. Interviews don't need to be adversarial. Edit: I do want to put in one good thing I got from your article to offset my rather negative responses. You mention that even if you reject a candidate you gave them the full code review and feedback about why you rejected them. The culture of secrecy surrounding rejections is something that needs to die, and I'm glad that although I think your process as a whole is unfair, you took the step to change that toxic part of our industry's interview culture.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  > Why not use a more humane interview process involving conversation about previous work, ideas about the future, strengths and weaknesses? Because I'm hiring someone to build technology, not to schmooze about it. I need proof of ability.
  - jakebasile 7y ago
    Do you hire people to write code like in the example, plotting mine routes? These things don't test for relevant technical ability, they test for compliance, they test for algorithmic knowledge, and they test for being a young person without technically being age discrimination.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- mayop100 7y ago
  The problem with interviews that rely on discussions of experience alone is that they aren't effective. It's easy for candidates to exaggerate or misrepresent their accomplishments. This is especially true when they worked on large team projects. For example, if they say "I was part of the team that built Google Search", that could be a really impressive thing if they played a key leadership or technical role, or it could be a really unimpressive thing if they hung out while others did the heavy lifting, and it's very hard to tell the difference.
  - jakebasile 7y ago
    Yeah this is the common excuse for torturous technical interviews but it just doesn't fly with me. What is the end game of the interviewer who is lying? They'll get found out when asked to deliver and lose their job eventually. This is not without cost to the employer, but it gets harder to explain so much turnover in your resume as you accumulate early exits. In addition, there are levels of technical chats that become very difficult to fake, further reducing the pool of lying interviewees people claim to be defending against.

jakebasile 7y ago

> The alternative to a take-home test is on-site interviews with white board problems. That's not the only alternative though. Why not use a more humane interview process involving conversation about previous work, ideas about the future, strengths and weaknesses? > The total time spent is higher than most interview processes I think, which can be a struggle for some folks. But I do think it's the right tradeoff. I don't agree but I'm glad you thought about it. I personally think making your interview process more inclusive allows you to get better candidates, as opposed to structuring the process in such a way to exclude those that have different priorities and life choices. > Regarding why time taken is an important data point -- we found a strong correlation between people who were able to get good solutions working quickly and people who were able to effectively defend their solutions during the "GoldMine review" in their on-site interview. Correlation doesn't equal causation though. I also want to point out that if you are expecting someone to "defend" themselves, that means you are on the offensive. Interviews don't need to be adversarial. Edit: I do want to put in one good thing I got from your article to offset my rather negative responses. You mention that even if you reject a candidate you gave them the full code review and feedback about why you rejected them. The culture of secrecy surrounding rejections is something that needs to die, and I'm glad that although I think your process as a whole is unfair, you took the step to change that toxic part of our industry's interview culture.

lonelappde 7y ago
> Why not use a more humane interview process involving conversation about previous work, ideas about the future, strengths and weaknesses? Because I'm hiring someone to build technology, not to schmooze about it. I need proof of ability.
- jakebasile 7y ago
  Do you hire people to write code like in the example, plotting mine routes? These things don't test for relevant technical ability, they test for compliance, they test for algorithmic knowledge, and they test for being a young person without technically being age discrimination.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mayop100 7y ago
The problem with interviews that rely on discussions of experience alone is that they aren't effective. It's easy for candidates to exaggerate or misrepresent their accomplishments. This is especially true when they worked on large team projects. For example, if they say "I was part of the team that built Google Search", that could be a really impressive thing if they played a key leadership or technical role, or it could be a really unimpressive thing if they hung out while others did the heavy lifting, and it's very hard to tell the difference.
- jakebasile 7y ago
  Yeah this is the common excuse for torturous technical interviews but it just doesn't fly with me. What is the end game of the interviewer who is lying? They'll get found out when asked to deliver and lose their job eventually. This is not without cost to the employer, but it gets harder to explain so much turnover in your resume as you accumulate early exits. In addition, there are levels of technical chats that become very difficult to fake, further reducing the pool of lying interviewees people claim to be defending against.