4 ms·

Uhm... I've rejected numerous applicants because they simply couldn't code, despite what was written in their CV, and this through whiteboard or side by side.

Uhm... I've rejected numerous applicants because they simply couldn't code, despite what was written in their CV, and this through whiteboard or side by side. And I'm not talking complicated stuff, but simple things like reverse a string or implement the hashCode/equals-methods. I'm all for giving people a chance, but requiring at least some basic knowledge for a coding position is fair IMHO.

freedomben 5y ago
Giving people a take-home test that takes them hours, especially before you even invest 30 minutes on a phone call to make sure they actually have a shot, is not the only way to make sure they can code. You can easily do that in a 15 to 30 min pair session. It's a selfish way to make sure your company wastes minimal of the their own time, at the expense of the candidate's time. My days of working for companies that think that way (especially if they are in denial about it) are over.
- johntiger1 5y ago
  The number of candidates far outstrips the time employees have to interview them
  - harry8 5y ago
    It's very simple. Don't pay placement agents tens of thousands of dollars for placing an advert and passing on cvs (at best - at worst biasing you the wrong way). Use that budget to pay the many candidates for their time. Short list of 30 candidates, you can pay each one $1k for time spent jumping through your hoops. Everything is better for everyone doing something like that, the company, the candidates who don't get hired and quality of candidates willing to go through the process. Just a straight up win.
    - manholio 5y ago
      That sounds good in theory until the company that does this is swamped by very strong applicants that have no intention in taking the job. The right balance is equality: I spend an hour, you spend an hour. Rapid CV filtering and coding quiz, then 30 minutes Skype interview to verify claimed abilities: coding, technologies etc. This will filter out 90% of applications and give you a pool of "real candidates" that you should treat with utmost respect. After this, if you need a 2 day coding test with production data, than you should call the candidate on site and pair them with one of your engineers full time for those 2 days.
      - harry8 5y ago
        This is nonsense. No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want to earn less money than they'd get consulting. You'd get a few more who don't "know" they've always wanted to work for you since forever (ha) and instead want to find out about you, which is a win for you. Applying isn't a dead loss if you don't take it, allows you to be but more adventurous in your applications. "We want to hire Jill who is amazing but couldn't get the incentive to get her across the line is good information. There's still the barrier of applying with a cover letter etc which is a hoop applicants are not getting paid for. Paying applicants for their time once you know you want to talk to them at length is the right thing to do and a huge win for your company. Paying placement agents is just an expensive, dead loss providing zero value to anyone.
        manholio 5y ago
        > No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want This is circular reasoning. You don't know the applicant is strong until they pass the interview, but you have to pay them to find out. It's a fantasy ripe for the the current seller market, enjoy it while it lasts.
        harry8 5y ago
        > once you know you want to talk to them at length. That makes them strong enough to pay for their time and if you don't think you can know that with a good enough accuracy to have the placement agents fees pay for it with no loss in an hour at most, maybe gardening is a better place to be than hiring people.
  - sdeframond 5y ago
    The number of companies hiring developers far outstrips the time any competent developer has to interview with them.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    I've experienced this too, and after some experimentation I realized this is sometimes the result of a poorly written job description in the req. You'll still get crap applicants, but 30 seconds of resume looking usually gets you a decent way through it.
zeckalpha 5y ago
There’s a distinction between a take home and a pair programming exercise. I am against the former but for the latter.
paxys 5y ago
If you place an undue burden on applicants, just know that you are filtering away both the ones at the bottom who don't know how to code and have faked their resume, and the ones at the top who can't be bothered with jumping through your hoops because they have enough other options.

freedomben 5y ago

Giving people a take-home test that takes them hours, especially before you even invest 30 minutes on a phone call to make sure they actually have a shot, is not the only way to make sure they can code. You can easily do that in a 15 to 30 min pair session. It's a selfish way to make sure your company wastes minimal of the their own time, at the expense of the candidate's time. My days of working for companies that think that way (especially if they are in denial about it) are over.

johntiger1 5y ago
The number of candidates far outstrips the time employees have to interview them
- harry8 5y ago
  It's very simple. Don't pay placement agents tens of thousands of dollars for placing an advert and passing on cvs (at best - at worst biasing you the wrong way). Use that budget to pay the many candidates for their time. Short list of 30 candidates, you can pay each one $1k for time spent jumping through your hoops. Everything is better for everyone doing something like that, the company, the candidates who don't get hired and quality of candidates willing to go through the process. Just a straight up win.
  - manholio 5y ago
    That sounds good in theory until the company that does this is swamped by very strong applicants that have no intention in taking the job. The right balance is equality: I spend an hour, you spend an hour. Rapid CV filtering and coding quiz, then 30 minutes Skype interview to verify claimed abilities: coding, technologies etc. This will filter out 90% of applications and give you a pool of "real candidates" that you should treat with utmost respect. After this, if you need a 2 day coding test with production data, than you should call the candidate on site and pair them with one of your engineers full time for those 2 days.
    - harry8 5y ago
      This is nonsense. No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want to earn less money than they'd get consulting. You'd get a few more who don't "know" they've always wanted to work for you since forever (ha) and instead want to find out about you, which is a win for you. Applying isn't a dead loss if you don't take it, allows you to be but more adventurous in your applications. "We want to hire Jill who is amazing but couldn't get the incentive to get her across the line is good information. There's still the barrier of applying with a cover letter etc which is a hoop applicants are not getting paid for. Paying applicants for their time once you know you want to talk to them at length is the right thing to do and a huge win for your company. Paying placement agents is just an expensive, dead loss providing zero value to anyone.
      - manholio 5y ago
        > No strong applicant wants to waste time applying for a job that they don't want This is circular reasoning. You don't know the applicant is strong until they pass the interview, but you have to pay them to find out. It's a fantasy ripe for the the current seller market, enjoy it while it lasts.
        harry8 5y ago
        > once you know you want to talk to them at length. That makes them strong enough to pay for their time and if you don't think you can know that with a good enough accuracy to have the placement agents fees pay for it with no loss in an hour at most, maybe gardening is a better place to be than hiring people.
- sdeframond 5y ago
  The number of companies hiring developers far outstrips the time any competent developer has to interview with them.
- freedomben 5y ago
  I've experienced this too, and after some experimentation I realized this is sometimes the result of a poorly written job description in the req. You'll still get crap applicants, but 30 seconds of resume looking usually gets you a decent way through it.

zeckalpha 5y ago

There’s a distinction between a take home and a pair programming exercise. I am against the former but for the latter.

paxys 5y ago

If you place an undue burden on applicants, just know that you are filtering away both the ones at the bottom who don't know how to code and have faked their resume, and the ones at the top who can't be bothered with jumping through your hoops because they have enough other options.