3 ms·

I think there is a big middle ground between no skill assessments/casual chat and onerous skill assessments that gatekeep the profession to those that can spend

I think there is a big middle ground between no skill assessments/casual chat and onerous skill assessments that gatekeep the profession to those that can spend hours of their own time after-hours, one that the vast majority of devs interviewing likely fall into. Hiring managers need to actually spend time constructing a process that has questions (and if needed, exercises) that specifically determine whether a candidate has the specific skills needed for the job at hand. But that is actually fairly hard to do right, and it's easy to just grab some semi-random "take home exercise" and hand it off and call it a proper assessment. A proper technical interview will have increasingly specific questions that will both assess skill level and a person's ability to communicate with the team. If there is an exercise, it should reflect the specific skills the person will be expected to use in the job at hand. And bonus points for flexibly adjusting between in-person or take-home depending on the interviewee's strengths and wishes in that regard.

jasode 4y ago
>I think there is a big middle ground between no skill assessments/casual chat and onerous skill assessments [...] Hiring managers need to actually spend time constructing a process that has questions (and if needed, exercises) The problem is you're using your own perspective of "reasonable middle ground" and thinking that other candidates would agree with you. Many would not. Here's an example of "you shouldn't have to go through that crap when your resume clearly states you are capable." : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11596553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11596553 So regardless of any "job-specific" skills assessment you come up with, you will still get complaints from many because they feel their resume of experience, (or github portfolio, or college degree, etc) -- should already prove that they know how to code. This is not an uncommon sentiment! E.g. "Making me demonstrate my coding skill is an insult when you could just look at my resume credentials. Does a pharmacist show how they dispense pills to get hired?!?" Or variations on your "reasonable skills assessment" with creative exercises such as "here's an existing bug ticket for a code defect; show us how you debug it" ... still has some complaints of "demonstrating my coding skill is unfair because I get nervous in interview situations because there's an imbalanced power dynamic between interviewer and interviewee." Ok, instead of interview because you get nervous under pressure, here's some coding homework. Of which this "reasonable" alternative has pushback from some comments in this subthread. Various threads about "hiring is broken" is evidence of the ever elusive "reasonable middle ground" that we're chasing after.
- LocalPCGuy 4y ago
  My point is, that while some people will always be on the extremes, I think this is very much a case of a vocal minority (i.e. the people complaining they should not need to do anything except provide a resume), and many people fall into believing that represents the majority. I posit that it does not, and only seems that way. Sadly, we all only really have anecdotal evidence and our own experiences to draw on for this, but still believe there is a middle ground to be had here. As with any middle ground, of course some will always be unhappy, such is life. Optimize for the majority, not the extremes.

jasode 4y ago

>I think there is a big middle ground between no skill assessments/casual chat and onerous skill assessments [...] Hiring managers need to actually spend time constructing a process that has questions (and if needed, exercises) The problem is you're using your own perspective of "reasonable middle ground" and thinking that other candidates would agree with you. Many would not. Here's an example of "you shouldn't have to go through that crap when your resume clearly states you are capable." : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11596553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11596553 So regardless of any "job-specific" skills assessment you come up with, you will still get complaints from many because they feel their resume of experience, (or github portfolio, or college degree, etc) -- should already prove that they know how to code. This is not an uncommon sentiment! E.g. "Making me demonstrate my coding skill is an insult when you could just look at my resume credentials. Does a pharmacist show how they dispense pills to get hired?!?" Or variations on your "reasonable skills assessment" with creative exercises such as "here's an existing bug ticket for a code defect; show us how you debug it" ... still has some complaints of "demonstrating my coding skill is unfair because I get nervous in interview situations because there's an imbalanced power dynamic between interviewer and interviewee." Ok, instead of interview because you get nervous under pressure, here's some coding homework. Of which this "reasonable" alternative has pushback from some comments in this subthread. Various threads about "hiring is broken" is evidence of the ever elusive "reasonable middle ground" that we're chasing after.

LocalPCGuy 4y ago
My point is, that while some people will always be on the extremes, I think this is very much a case of a vocal minority (i.e. the people complaining they should not need to do anything except provide a resume), and many people fall into believing that represents the majority. I posit that it does not, and only seems that way. Sadly, we all only really have anecdotal evidence and our own experiences to draw on for this, but still believe there is a middle ground to be had here. As with any middle ground, of course some will always be unhappy, such is life. Optimize for the majority, not the extremes.