3 ms·

Coding challenges used to sound like a good idea to me. Who wants to go through the whiteboard torture session? The last time I looked for a job I was presente

Coding challenges used to sound like a good idea to me. Who wants to go through the whiteboard torture session? The last time I looked for a job I was presented with multiple "take-home" coding challenges. I had to spend hours on them each night after working my regular job. It was exhausting. I would send it off and either receive no feedback at all, a "thanks but no thanks" with no constructive feedback, or an invitation... to come in for a whiteboard algorithms red/black tree interview. Ultimately I got a job that had a traditional (sucky) interview process. These coding assignments are a disrespectful waste of time.

opportune 5y ago
Homework interviews are terrible because they cost absolutely nothing for a company to give. You can spend 4 hours on them and perhaps nobody will even take a single look at it, they just gave it to you because why not. They’re also (IMO) pretty low signal because you could cheat on them easily. Meanwhile a phone interview (even if algorithms) takes only 60m or less and shows the company is at least invested enough in you as a candidate to have somebody spend that time with you. Cheating is definitely still possible, but harder and more awkward. It just seems better overall.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
  I agree with that statement, that's why we put the coding challenge to _after_ the technical chat. The technical chat (which is just a chat, no algorithms involved) is performed by a developer, it's 45 minutes chat. Only after that there is the coding challenge. The company is definitely invested by that time. I also enforce the rule of providing feedback, as well as invest an enormous amount of time reviewing and evaluating the submissions (at least 1 hour + time to write down feedback, points to further dig through during the next interview step). And yes, when applying for a job it's the worst. I also have no solution. Removing it would mean making the "full day with the team" even longer and more stressful (I'd rather do less live coding than more). Yes it can be cheated, but that would come up in the full day interview (it did happen), so it's irrelevant, there are multiple filters on purpose, however each filter is more expensive for the company or the candidate and balancing between the two is important. That's also why I think a chat with a developer is important to have as early as possible.
908B64B197 5y ago
> The last time I looked for a job I was presented with multiple "take-home" coding challenges. I had to spend hours on them each night after working my regular job. It was exhausting. I would send it off and either receive no feedback at all, a "thanks but no thanks" with no constructive feedback, or an invitation... to come in for a whiteboard algorithms red/black tree interview. That's the reason I advise against them. Unless you are the top company in your bracket, your completion rate will also not be so great for a take-home (people have limited time: they'll sort by how good your company is). Sure they'll do Google's take-home but local business that does local comp/prevailing wages? It's at the bottom of the pile. By the time they get to it, the best candidates will already have an offer from a better company. That's why I prefer to bring people on-site as soon as possible, and do a little whiteboard (the point being that the candidate must... know how to code!). It's an artificial challenge that's really a pretext to have a technical discussion. Only time I advise to use take-homes is when you are dealing with a massive number of applicants from institutions that have a poor signal to noise ratio. Bootcamps come to mind. But then you end up with candidates that have the homework done by someone else and it ends up not being a good filter either.
D-Coder 5y ago
I did this twice with one company, AthenaHealth in Watertown MA. I spent hours on the challenge. They never even bothered to call or email and tell me "Nope." After that... well, f*** them.

opportune 5y ago

Homework interviews are terrible because they cost absolutely nothing for a company to give. You can spend 4 hours on them and perhaps nobody will even take a single look at it, they just gave it to you because why not. They’re also (IMO) pretty low signal because you could cheat on them easily. Meanwhile a phone interview (even if algorithms) takes only 60m or less and shows the company is at least invested enough in you as a candidate to have somebody spend that time with you. Cheating is definitely still possible, but harder and more awkward. It just seems better overall.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
I agree with that statement, that's why we put the coding challenge to _after_ the technical chat. The technical chat (which is just a chat, no algorithms involved) is performed by a developer, it's 45 minutes chat. Only after that there is the coding challenge. The company is definitely invested by that time. I also enforce the rule of providing feedback, as well as invest an enormous amount of time reviewing and evaluating the submissions (at least 1 hour + time to write down feedback, points to further dig through during the next interview step). And yes, when applying for a job it's the worst. I also have no solution. Removing it would mean making the "full day with the team" even longer and more stressful (I'd rather do less live coding than more). Yes it can be cheated, but that would come up in the full day interview (it did happen), so it's irrelevant, there are multiple filters on purpose, however each filter is more expensive for the company or the candidate and balancing between the two is important. That's also why I think a chat with a developer is important to have as early as possible.

908B64B197 5y ago

> The last time I looked for a job I was presented with multiple "take-home" coding challenges. I had to spend hours on them each night after working my regular job. It was exhausting. I would send it off and either receive no feedback at all, a "thanks but no thanks" with no constructive feedback, or an invitation... to come in for a whiteboard algorithms red/black tree interview. That's the reason I advise against them. Unless you are the top company in your bracket, your completion rate will also not be so great for a take-home (people have limited time: they'll sort by how good your company is). Sure they'll do Google's take-home but local business that does local comp/prevailing wages? It's at the bottom of the pile. By the time they get to it, the best candidates will already have an offer from a better company. That's why I prefer to bring people on-site as soon as possible, and do a little whiteboard (the point being that the candidate must... know how to code!). It's an artificial challenge that's really a pretext to have a technical discussion. Only time I advise to use take-homes is when you are dealing with a massive number of applicants from institutions that have a poor signal to noise ratio. Bootcamps come to mind. But then you end up with candidates that have the homework done by someone else and it ends up not being a good filter either.

D-Coder 5y ago

I did this twice with one company, AthenaHealth in Watertown MA. I spent hours on the challenge. They never even bothered to call or email and tell me "Nope." After that... well, f*** them.