It seems like loads of comments consider "someone good at coding" as the only benchmark of a good employee. Even the report implies that "people who took the te

It seems like loads of comments consider "someone good at coding" as the only benchmark of a good employee. Even the report implies that "people who took the test in private passed". Passed what? I am looking for people who can handle pressure, who can communicate clearly, who can handle the unfamiliarness of the experience, who can handle time pressure even though most of the time they wouldn't face that at work. If an experienced engineer cannot split a string in less than a minute on a test then they don't figure as a valuable emplyee to me. Why? Because anyone can Google something or apply deep thought in a private room but good employees imho can work with noise around them, with distractions, with changing priorities etc. in other words the interview is a poor representation of a real environment. Sure, it means you might lose out on someone who just needed a few hours to calm down but how are you supposed to know that? Maybe they needed another few hours, days, weeks? Maybe the test you gave them was hard but if you asked them about something else, they would have done better. It's no different than someone turning up late. It very likely wasn't their fault but you use it as an indicator anyway because you don't know them and don't have much else to go on.