3 ms·

I've done a similar test. I didn't finish it in the time allotted, but a few other candidates did and they hired one of them. The fact companies can do these ki

I've done a similar test. I didn't finish it in the time allotted, but a few other candidates did and they hired one of them. The fact companies can do these kinds of demanding frontend tests and still hire people is what makes me think there's a glut of web developers and not a shortage like people keep saying.

codyb 7y ago
I had an onsite recently that told me were were going to be building something that had to interact with a postgres database. I built out the entire backend prior and took copious notes because getting stuck looking up things like “how do I initialize a postgresdb” (something I do maybe once a year, if ever) would eat up time. I think I did pretty well at that onsite because of the fact that I prepped before hand and they didn’t seem to mind that. It’s weird to me because in general most engineers are rarely if ever creating an entire stack from scratch and it can be very easy to want to do such a thing methodically and with best practices in mind. How would I enable hot code reloading? How do I set up PostGres so I’m not just connecting as super user which is obviously a security risk? Etc etc. To be able to do these tasks under pressure with an engineers mindset is tough and you either have to really drill down and focus and stress that in a real setting you wouldn’t be connecting as superuser but for the sake of time in this particular toy exercise you will be. Being able to prep was essential, and even so, I still stumbled here and there with unfamiliar syntax. Interviewing is not a solved problem.
badfrog 7y ago
I think the shortage is _good_ web developers, and it sounds like this test doesn't really help identify those.
zebraflask 7y ago
There's a glut of resumes that have something web dev on them, and a scarcity of reliable ways to filter for the candidates who legitimately have the skillset(s) needed for the job. I've done a lot of these tests and interview projects, passed plenty, didn't pass a few, didn't bother finishing a few, but - weirdly - every place I've been hired didn't use them in the first place. I've started to view them as a sign of a company you probably don't want to work for.
- shantly 7y ago
  > I've done a lot of these tests and interview projects, passed plenty, didn't pass a few, didn't bother finishing a few, but - weirdly - every place I've been hired didn't use them in the first place. Similar here. Strangely, the places that don't do them pay about the same as the ones who do (in the same market—not talking FAANG versus Bob's Printer Service & PC Repair in Madison, WI). After my latest search my new policy for future searches (at least until the downturn or it otherwise stops being super easy to find jobs) is at least not to do any kind of project or evaluation before a real interview, that is, without a real person from the company taking the same time I am, at the same time. The kind where they send you to some "coding challenge" website or give you some "take-home" project before even talking to you. If they're asking me to burn a bunch of my time to save some of theirs, it means I'm too far down the slush pile and/or they're too bad at interviewing for it to be worth my time.
  - mplanchard 7y ago
    We use a third party for the initial code screen because we feel like it’s more useful and more respectful to the candidates. We worked with them to pick questions that were representative of the type of “real” coding someone might do at our company, i.e. not algorithms or brain teasers. The company also includes a section assessing how the candidate communicates about bugs they’ve investigated. The screen allows 75 minutes and can be done any time the candidate wants, without someone sitting over their shoulder. When it’s done, the candidate gets the same feedback that we do about their performance. The feedback we get includes the candidate’s solution, a general “score,” and a series of bullets of things the candidate did and did not do well. Compare this to what we did previously, which was to get one of our engineers on the phone and on a pair coding website to ask brain teasers. The candidate got no followup feedback if they didn’t do well. On top of that, because the people doing the interviews knew that if they said “no hire” it would stop the process in its tracks and the person would never get an on-site, we had something like a 95% pass rate. We evaluated several third parties for this, and felt the one we chose was the most useful and the most respectful of candidates’ time. I understand that the process isn’t for everyone (no process is), but we’ve gotten generally good feedback from applicants so far about the company we chose (Woven, for the record). Edit: also just noting that we don’t do any sort of hard cutoff for the scores they send us. We try to evaluate each candidate’s performance in light of their experience, looking at what they were and weren’t able to get done, etc. We had someone recently do amazingly on the first half but not even finish the second: presumably they ran out of time, but we brought them on anyway because we felt like their performance on the first half deserved earned them some further consideration, even though their overall score was quite low.

codyb 7y ago

I had an onsite recently that told me were were going to be building something that had to interact with a postgres database. I built out the entire backend prior and took copious notes because getting stuck looking up things like “how do I initialize a postgresdb” (something I do maybe once a year, if ever) would eat up time. I think I did pretty well at that onsite because of the fact that I prepped before hand and they didn’t seem to mind that. It’s weird to me because in general most engineers are rarely if ever creating an entire stack from scratch and it can be very easy to want to do such a thing methodically and with best practices in mind. How would I enable hot code reloading? How do I set up PostGres so I’m not just connecting as super user which is obviously a security risk? Etc etc. To be able to do these tasks under pressure with an engineers mindset is tough and you either have to really drill down and focus and stress that in a real setting you wouldn’t be connecting as superuser but for the sake of time in this particular toy exercise you will be. Being able to prep was essential, and even so, I still stumbled here and there with unfamiliar syntax. Interviewing is not a solved problem.

badfrog 7y ago

I think the shortage is _good_ web developers, and it sounds like this test doesn't really help identify those.

zebraflask 7y ago

There's a glut of resumes that have something web dev on them, and a scarcity of reliable ways to filter for the candidates who legitimately have the skillset(s) needed for the job. I've done a lot of these tests and interview projects, passed plenty, didn't pass a few, didn't bother finishing a few, but - weirdly - every place I've been hired didn't use them in the first place. I've started to view them as a sign of a company you probably don't want to work for.

shantly 7y ago
> I've done a lot of these tests and interview projects, passed plenty, didn't pass a few, didn't bother finishing a few, but - weirdly - every place I've been hired didn't use them in the first place. Similar here. Strangely, the places that don't do them pay about the same as the ones who do (in the same market—not talking FAANG versus Bob's Printer Service & PC Repair in Madison, WI). After my latest search my new policy for future searches (at least until the downturn or it otherwise stops being super easy to find jobs) is at least not to do any kind of project or evaluation before a real interview, that is, without a real person from the company taking the same time I am, at the same time. The kind where they send you to some "coding challenge" website or give you some "take-home" project before even talking to you. If they're asking me to burn a bunch of my time to save some of theirs, it means I'm too far down the slush pile and/or they're too bad at interviewing for it to be worth my time.
- mplanchard 7y ago
  We use a third party for the initial code screen because we feel like it’s more useful and more respectful to the candidates. We worked with them to pick questions that were representative of the type of “real” coding someone might do at our company, i.e. not algorithms or brain teasers. The company also includes a section assessing how the candidate communicates about bugs they’ve investigated. The screen allows 75 minutes and can be done any time the candidate wants, without someone sitting over their shoulder. When it’s done, the candidate gets the same feedback that we do about their performance. The feedback we get includes the candidate’s solution, a general “score,” and a series of bullets of things the candidate did and did not do well. Compare this to what we did previously, which was to get one of our engineers on the phone and on a pair coding website to ask brain teasers. The candidate got no followup feedback if they didn’t do well. On top of that, because the people doing the interviews knew that if they said “no hire” it would stop the process in its tracks and the person would never get an on-site, we had something like a 95% pass rate. We evaluated several third parties for this, and felt the one we chose was the most useful and the most respectful of candidates’ time. I understand that the process isn’t for everyone (no process is), but we’ve gotten generally good feedback from applicants so far about the company we chose (Woven, for the record). Edit: also just noting that we don’t do any sort of hard cutoff for the scores they send us. We try to evaluate each candidate’s performance in light of their experience, looking at what they were and weren’t able to get done, etc. We had someone recently do amazingly on the first half but not even finish the second: presumably they ran out of time, but we brought them on anyway because we felt like their performance on the first half deserved earned them some further consideration, even though their overall score was quite low.