4 ms·

> I think of the coding challenge as a way to understand what kind of code can I expect from the candidate. I think you get the "coding challenge kind of code"

> I think of the coding challenge as a way to understand what kind of code can I expect from the candidate. I think you get the "coding challenge kind of code" with varying degrees of the subject's personal flavor on it. People can and will produce different kind of code in a different setting, or if you just ask them to do so. So it might not tell you as much as you think? EDIT: Virtually every employer / project I've worked on has had completely different requirements for what the code should be like. And my own style(s) for my own projects is again completely different. There's no "here's the kind of code I produce", but "what kind of code would you like?". And it's ok not to get it right in the first sitting, these things are discussed and they evolve internally in reviews, style guidelines, meetings, etc. > A cool thing about this is that you can have an idea of the level of interest of the candidate. Towards what? The coding challenge? The long overdue neo-legacy project you're going to hand them? Just having a job? How does that interest show? > Finally, isn't everything just signal? The signal doesn't necessarily say what you think it says. That's the biggest issue I find in all these hiring threads. If you do such and such, you suck. Good candidates do this and that. I wouldn't hire someone who X. The best candidates Y. Bla bla, yada yada, on and on. I feel like there's an immense amount of assumptions that hold.. in the interviewer's mental image of the ideal candidate / stereotypical poor candidate. In reality it smells like prejudice and "no true scotsman" all over, at least when taken with the limited context we're given. And my anecdote is that the signal is very often wrong. This comes mainly from helping out newbies and/or joining educational groups. Many times the first impressions mislead: I can't help but think "this dude has no clue" and I'm almost ready to write them off as a hopeless case. But give them a few weeks and many of them turn out to be very competent, fast learners, good thinkers. It's easy to underappreciate how diverse people.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
> I think you get the "coding challenge kind of code" with varying degrees of the subject's personal flavor on it. People can and will produce different kind of code in a different setting, or if you just ask them to do so. So I don't think it helps you as much as you think? Good point. The hiring process I work on is definitely not objective though and I don't expect to be able to have an objective process. I expect to have a subjective process (yes, it's driven by people) but have people on the job we are happy to work with (not necessary excellent). Striving for the best candidate is great, but I have no idea what to do to achieve that, I'm working on it. Referrals are a great way, but that resource is used extensively already, there is a need for also the other funnel (lot of hiring needed), there aren't enough people in just referrals. > How does that interest show? In various ways, as I said, I think being subjective is the only way to manage a coding challenge, is not an objective measurement by any mean. Sometimes it's clearly a showcase (this part is too easy, I don't care, but you should really look at this small snippet), sometimes is "this is way too easy, here is an 80 lines script to do it efficiently, you don't need anything else", sometimes is a widely designed system for the purpose of showing design skill. Sometimes people have no time, but the question needed to answer is "can the person code and do I want to bring them to the next step". Sometimes I can't infer anything aside from the "can code", there are many variables at play. Everything is signal, but I'm not looking for something specific aside from the "can code". Sorry, yes, there are people that can't code at all and do apply and we have to filter for them. Consider the challenge a captcha for developers.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I trust that there are people who can't code at all but somehow I've gotten my job offers without any coding challenges. I wonder how that's possible.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
    The first chat with the technical person should highlight if there is a need for a coding challenge at all. Like, the very strong candidates are so thoughtful that's essentially pointless to ask them to code. They are also rare and far between, though. The average candidate can code and something can be said based on their coding challenge, which is not necessary something measurable or comparable, but it is something useful to understand who that candidate is. I'm struggling to express my thought because I'm the first one to say "I should be able to chat with a person for ~X hours to know if I want to hire them", however I'm faced with the reality that: - it's expensive (people hiring should be your strong people) - guts are not always right, occasionally they fail and that candidate is not good - the best experiences I had as an interviewee did involve some live coding, although that wasn't necessary the focus of the interview: getting to know the people on the other side and pair with them is what made it a good experience. I dread live coding, but in some form those interviews were great - met candidates which were amazing in all forms of chat, everyone hyped, until we faced them with technical stuff (very basic) I don't think there is a saving grace for the process I'm currently using, however I can't find a solution either. A simple chat with the team has proven dangerous as well as expensive multiple times. An objective process has proven impossible and rigid. We are talking with humans, I'd rather tune every evaluation to the candidate itself, which in turn leads to making the process hard to evaluate. Referrals work only up to a certain point, given the amount of people needed to hire, it's not a funnel big enough. I wish I could solve the problem in some way, I read and study, but I still haven't found a way to solve it. Almost forgot: The coding challenge keeps being a useful way to sprout conversation during the "full day with the team" interview, so it sets the ground for that too.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago

> I think you get the "coding challenge kind of code" with varying degrees of the subject's personal flavor on it. People can and will produce different kind of code in a different setting, or if you just ask them to do so. So I don't think it helps you as much as you think? Good point. The hiring process I work on is definitely not objective though and I don't expect to be able to have an objective process. I expect to have a subjective process (yes, it's driven by people) but have people on the job we are happy to work with (not necessary excellent). Striving for the best candidate is great, but I have no idea what to do to achieve that, I'm working on it. Referrals are a great way, but that resource is used extensively already, there is a need for also the other funnel (lot of hiring needed), there aren't enough people in just referrals. > How does that interest show? In various ways, as I said, I think being subjective is the only way to manage a coding challenge, is not an objective measurement by any mean. Sometimes it's clearly a showcase (this part is too easy, I don't care, but you should really look at this small snippet), sometimes is "this is way too easy, here is an 80 lines script to do it efficiently, you don't need anything else", sometimes is a widely designed system for the purpose of showing design skill. Sometimes people have no time, but the question needed to answer is "can the person code and do I want to bring them to the next step". Sometimes I can't infer anything aside from the "can code", there are many variables at play. Everything is signal, but I'm not looking for something specific aside from the "can code". Sorry, yes, there are people that can't code at all and do apply and we have to filter for them. Consider the challenge a captcha for developers.

foxfluff 5y ago
I trust that there are people who can't code at all but somehow I've gotten my job offers without any coding challenges. I wonder how that's possible.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
  The first chat with the technical person should highlight if there is a need for a coding challenge at all. Like, the very strong candidates are so thoughtful that's essentially pointless to ask them to code. They are also rare and far between, though. The average candidate can code and something can be said based on their coding challenge, which is not necessary something measurable or comparable, but it is something useful to understand who that candidate is. I'm struggling to express my thought because I'm the first one to say "I should be able to chat with a person for ~X hours to know if I want to hire them", however I'm faced with the reality that: - it's expensive (people hiring should be your strong people) - guts are not always right, occasionally they fail and that candidate is not good - the best experiences I had as an interviewee did involve some live coding, although that wasn't necessary the focus of the interview: getting to know the people on the other side and pair with them is what made it a good experience. I dread live coding, but in some form those interviews were great - met candidates which were amazing in all forms of chat, everyone hyped, until we faced them with technical stuff (very basic) I don't think there is a saving grace for the process I'm currently using, however I can't find a solution either. A simple chat with the team has proven dangerous as well as expensive multiple times. An objective process has proven impossible and rigid. We are talking with humans, I'd rather tune every evaluation to the candidate itself, which in turn leads to making the process hard to evaluate. Referrals work only up to a certain point, given the amount of people needed to hire, it's not a funnel big enough. I wish I could solve the problem in some way, I read and study, but I still haven't found a way to solve it. Almost forgot: The coding challenge keeps being a useful way to sprout conversation during the "full day with the team" interview, so it sets the ground for that too.