4 ms·
One thing I wish I could see but probably isn't compilable is how much an impact the test has on the final decision or what stage it's at. Lots of the comments
by morelisp 4y ago
One thing I wish I could see but probably isn't compilable is how much an impact the test has on the final decision or what stage it's at.
Lots of the comments are pointing out a 2-4h takehome is a poor value prop from the candidate's side compared to a 1h leetcode which transfers better across companies. (I'd agree with this.) But a 1h leetcode is usually just a first hurdle to what's often another 1-3 rounds, while for me the point of the 2-4h takehome is that it's the only thing. You do it, we grade/talk about, we can arrange a more formal team meeting if you want but that's the whole process.
Am I alone in wanting shorter interviews but longer tests?
- alexyang21 4y agoI couldn't agree more. While it's not compilable, I did reach out to a few of the 5-star test designers and asked them this question. How teams use their tests (both in weight and stage) varies a lot, but the well-designed tests usually featured as a central component of the hiring process. They were often given at the stage right before the final round of interviews, but occasionally earlier. The 5-star test designers I spoke with weighted the test heavily because it: 1. helped them reduce bias, identifying great candidates even when they didn't have the backgrounds they expected 2. gave them a foundation for the future interviews. It's less stressful on candidates when they're already familiar with the code being discussed live (because they wrote it!) Anecdotally, on-the-job performance of the candidates they ultimately hired seemed to correlate with performance on the test. I realize this is very hard to compare against other evaluation approaches though!