5 ms·

One thing to remember about stats like this is that the sample is very biased. While there are all kinds of reasons a person might be looking for work, and many

One thing to remember about stats like this is that the sample is very biased. While there are all kinds of reasons a person might be looking for work, and many people looking will potentially be great employees, most great employees already have jobs. The population looking for jobs is going to be, on average, less suitable for employment than those who already have them. Add to that the fact that more promising applicants tend to be selective with their applications, whereas lower quality applicants tend to spam resumes out widely, as long as little effort is required, and it starts to become unsurprising that a large majority of people who click an apply button don't bother to go further when a minor roadblock is hit. Ours is a very different type of business than Home Depot, but we intentionally put a minor roadblock (a fizzbuzz-level coding problem) in our job application, specifically to filter out those applicants unwilling or unable to put in the slightest effort to apply. (And we see a very similar percentage who don't bother to complete it - at least 90%.) The question is intentionally easy, as we don't want to waste people's time, and it's not fair to ask for much before reciprocating. But it is a fantastic way to eliminate the applicants who are just using the shotgun approach, and get down to those who actually have a clue and a real interest in the position. (Much fairer and more useful than keyword filtering imo too, and can be a good way to start a dialogue.) So I guess what I'm saying is, maybe this is a feature, not a bug.

willsmith72 4y ago
I generally avoid applications like those. For one, when I'm applying for jobs, I'm in a totally different headspace to when I'm programming. It's uncomfortable and takes me out of the zone. And two, sometimes I apply for jobs on my phone. With a saved resume and autofill from Google it works out really well - but not if there's a coding question.
- tempestn 4y ago
  I'm sure it results in some false negatives, but I don't know of a better way to filter the applicant pool to something reasonable. And so far it's helped me hire a fantastic team of developers, many of whom don't have the standard credentials you might look for on a résumé. That said, I do think I'm going to try and simplify the question even further, since I think having anything at all will accomplish the goal, so there's no point making people do any more work than absolutely necessary.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > I'm sure it results in some false negatives, but I don't know of a better way to filter the applicant pool to something reasonable. You mentioned a better way in your original comment: >>> we intentionally put a minor roadblock (a fizzbuzz-level coding problem) in our job application, specifically to filter out those applicants unwilling or unable to put in the slightest effort to apply. (And we see a very similar percentage who don't bother to complete it - at least 90%.) The question is intentionally easy Use a difficult question, and you'll get a smaller pool of higher-quality applicants.
    - tempestn 4y ago
      We do use difficult questions later in the process. I don't believe it's reasonable to put a difficult question right in the job application before the applicant even knows if we're going to respond. That's why that question is intentionally easy. As another reply said, it's basically like a captcha.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        What is the benefit of the first stage of the process? If you do well at the first stage, and poorly at the second stage, can you be hired?
        tempestn 4y ago
        The first stage is just a quick question we ask people to answer along with their initial application. The second stage is what we use as an actual interview process (described in more detail in other replies here). The purpose of the first stage is just to filter out the large percentage of applicants who are unqualified and just spamming out résumés. Passing that alone is of course not enough for someone to be hired.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Well, again, what is the benefit of having a multi-stage process? Is it helping the applicants? Is it helping you? Start with a harder question, and you're doing them a favor at the same time you do one for yourself. Why would you need one filter for "qualifications > 1" and a second one for "qualifications > 4" when you could just apply "qualifications > 4"?
Oras 4y ago
Two years ago when I was applying for a job, every application requested a take-home test. After doing a few of these, I decided I will NEVER do them again. I will not spend hours coding only to be (at best case) reviewed for a few minutes by someone from the other end. I know you're saying it is a minor roadblock, but how do I know that you're not going to ghost my application like most of other companies do? That's why most people will not bother to do your test, not something about you, but the broken system.
- intelVISA 4y ago
  FizzBuzz isn't quite a take-home. A good screen is something that takes under 1minute so it doesn't disrespect the candidate's time whilst also being vaguely useful -- sure passing FBuzz means nothing but failure is pretty much the red flag of red flags for SWE hiring.
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  If they paid you 100 USD / hour (say, max 2-4 hours), would you do it? I would. In some places, Amazon gift cards could be used. To me, they should do at least one solid hour on the phone/vid/in-person technical interview. If OK, then proceed to take-home test.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    $100/hr is a low salary for contract work (at least for software engineers in the US). Maybe for $300 I would do it. Of course if I were unemployed and didn’t have other options I’d do it for free…
    - CoastalCoder 4y ago
      At least for me, I wouldn't need that hourly rate to match my normal hourly rate. Offering $100/hour for a take-home problem would signal that they respected my time, which goes a long way.
    - throwaway2037 4y ago

willsmith72 4y ago

I generally avoid applications like those. For one, when I'm applying for jobs, I'm in a totally different headspace to when I'm programming. It's uncomfortable and takes me out of the zone. And two, sometimes I apply for jobs on my phone. With a saved resume and autofill from Google it works out really well - but not if there's a coding question.

tempestn 4y ago
I'm sure it results in some false negatives, but I don't know of a better way to filter the applicant pool to something reasonable. And so far it's helped me hire a fantastic team of developers, many of whom don't have the standard credentials you might look for on a résumé. That said, I do think I'm going to try and simplify the question even further, since I think having anything at all will accomplish the goal, so there's no point making people do any more work than absolutely necessary.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > I'm sure it results in some false negatives, but I don't know of a better way to filter the applicant pool to something reasonable. You mentioned a better way in your original comment: >>> we intentionally put a minor roadblock (a fizzbuzz-level coding problem) in our job application, specifically to filter out those applicants unwilling or unable to put in the slightest effort to apply. (And we see a very similar percentage who don't bother to complete it - at least 90%.) The question is intentionally easy Use a difficult question, and you'll get a smaller pool of higher-quality applicants.
  - tempestn 4y ago
    We do use difficult questions later in the process. I don't believe it's reasonable to put a difficult question right in the job application before the applicant even knows if we're going to respond. That's why that question is intentionally easy. As another reply said, it's basically like a captcha.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      What is the benefit of the first stage of the process? If you do well at the first stage, and poorly at the second stage, can you be hired?
      - tempestn 4y ago
        The first stage is just a quick question we ask people to answer along with their initial application. The second stage is what we use as an actual interview process (described in more detail in other replies here). The purpose of the first stage is just to filter out the large percentage of applicants who are unqualified and just spamming out résumés. Passing that alone is of course not enough for someone to be hired.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Well, again, what is the benefit of having a multi-stage process? Is it helping the applicants? Is it helping you? Start with a harder question, and you're doing them a favor at the same time you do one for yourself. Why would you need one filter for "qualifications > 1" and a second one for "qualifications > 4" when you could just apply "qualifications > 4"?

Oras 4y ago

Two years ago when I was applying for a job, every application requested a take-home test. After doing a few of these, I decided I will NEVER do them again. I will not spend hours coding only to be (at best case) reviewed for a few minutes by someone from the other end. I know you're saying it is a minor roadblock, but how do I know that you're not going to ghost my application like most of other companies do? That's why most people will not bother to do your test, not something about you, but the broken system.

intelVISA 4y ago
FizzBuzz isn't quite a take-home. A good screen is something that takes under 1minute so it doesn't disrespect the candidate's time whilst also being vaguely useful -- sure passing FBuzz means nothing but failure is pretty much the red flag of red flags for SWE hiring.
throwaway2037 4y ago
If they paid you 100 USD / hour (say, max 2-4 hours), would you do it? I would. In some places, Amazon gift cards could be used. To me, they should do at least one solid hour on the phone/vid/in-person technical interview. If OK, then proceed to take-home test.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  $100/hr is a low salary for contract work (at least for software engineers in the US). Maybe for $300 I would do it. Of course if I were unemployed and didn’t have other options I’d do it for free…
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    At least for me, I wouldn't need that hourly rate to match my normal hourly rate. Offering $100/hour for a take-home problem would signal that they respected my time, which goes a long way.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago