3 ms·

I think something like this works well: 0. 45 minute homework/prescreen. Provide an (optional) pre-setup environment so it's mostly about coding and not about

I think something like this works well: 0. 45 minute homework/prescreen. Provide an (optional) pre-setup environment so it's mostly about coding and not about building/installing deps. 1. on-site where you chat about your solution, mostly an ice breaker/introduction to the team. 2. pair-programming to extend the homework or work on a simplified but real problem encountered day to day, open book 3. design review 4. code review 5. behavioral / case study All of these can be pretty objective and don't rely on any memorization. All this should be pre-canned so individual proctors don't come up with their own questions and you're comparing candidates around the same prompts. It's amazing how few companies even manage these basic steps. I think most importantly the hiring should be done by a committee of actual practicing engineers - that means if you have checked in code in six months you aren't a vote on the committee.

stickyricky 4y ago
Imagine the other side. You're more than likely doing this for multiple companies. Plus working your current job. Plus taking care of your kids! You have to devote minimum 5 hours per interested company. IMO that's ridiculous. I also think its why startups skew so young. I don't have the energy to put up with it anymore.
higeorge13 4y ago
Sorry, but take home test as the first step to filter them is a big no for me. Why should i waste time on a test before even meeting anyone? 1, 2 and 5 should be more than enough. You get to talk to them about their past expertise and even combine it with some design discussion, you get a pair programming session and a final casual discussion. Why do you need everything else?
- siliconc0w 4y ago
  They call it a funnel for a reason - most candidates are not worth bringing onsite - which is expensive for both sides. So you need a screen anyway and homework should, if it's well designed, take similar amount of time to a screen. In my experience it takes most teams at least six months to get an engineer productive and a year before they're really hitting on all cylinders. If you're asking a company to spend six months to a year training you, giving up a day isn't (IMO) a huge ask. As a candidate you really shouldn't need to go onsite at more than a handful of companies or you're really wasting everyone's time.

stickyricky 4y ago

Imagine the other side. You're more than likely doing this for multiple companies. Plus working your current job. Plus taking care of your kids! You have to devote minimum 5 hours per interested company. IMO that's ridiculous. I also think its why startups skew so young. I don't have the energy to put up with it anymore.

higeorge13 4y ago

Sorry, but take home test as the first step to filter them is a big no for me. Why should i waste time on a test before even meeting anyone? 1, 2 and 5 should be more than enough. You get to talk to them about their past expertise and even combine it with some design discussion, you get a pair programming session and a final casual discussion. Why do you need everything else?

siliconc0w 4y ago
They call it a funnel for a reason - most candidates are not worth bringing onsite - which is expensive for both sides. So you need a screen anyway and homework should, if it's well designed, take similar amount of time to a screen. In my experience it takes most teams at least six months to get an engineer productive and a year before they're really hitting on all cylinders. If you're asking a company to spend six months to a year training you, giving up a day isn't (IMO) a huge ask. As a candidate you really shouldn't need to go onsite at more than a handful of companies or you're really wasting everyone's time.