> I also hate the new trend of "take home" tests. That just seems disrespectful of the candidate's time. And there lies the problem: I would prefer a take home

> I also hate the new trend of "take home" tests. That just seems disrespectful of the candidate's time. And there lies the problem: I would prefer a take home test way more than whiteboard interview. With the take-home test I would feel more comfortable. As a VP of Engineering in a growing startup, I have to deal with interviewing 2 or 3 candidates every week. We have settled for a process which has given us good results. But for me the key has been to avoid taking tests "literally" but use them more as tools to get to know the candidate. To give you an example: I have had jr people that did too little in our "onsite" (a 3 hour coding challenge of modifying some source-code) but at the end we took a chance and offered 3-month internship with possibility of becoming full time after that. We have had success with that. I've had people who just flunk the interviews but I see something in them and we take a chance. Similarly, I have seen people that pass the interview pretty well but it so happens that they are just not cut for a startup culture (I had a guy coming from a"big corp" Tata/HCL/Cognizant/AmDocs kind of culture who struggled to strive in the uncertain and dynamic environment of a startup, after several months, we decided to end it (the nice thing in Mexico is that, by law, we paid him for 3 months severance) because both sides were suffering.