5 ms·

The purpose of the question is to avoid triggering "they will just move on and hire someone else". As you well know. (and evidenced by "I will also state that

The purpose of the question is to avoid triggering "they will just move on and hire someone else". As you well know. (and evidenced by "I will also state that they can check out some of the previous code I have written on my GitHub." where the candidate still wants the company to keep considering them after declining the test.)

tensor 4y ago
Whether or not you think a take home test is appropriate, it would be unethical of the company to let some candidates skip it. Every candidate should be evaluated the same way.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I don't really think that it would be unethical for a company to not have a uniform evaluation like that. It would be unwise, but not unethical.
- rrobukef 4y ago
  Why would this be? The goal of the test is to have a minimal baseline. Considering outside proof of this baseline is not unethical. If maybe it shouldn't be used to rank candidates, but you'd probably do this anyway for the final consideration.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > The goal of the test is to have a minimal baseline. How do you know that's the goal of the test?
    - lukas099 4y ago
      Even if it's not specifically that, if the company thinks you are the best available candidate (by whatever criteria they have) despite your not taking the test, I don't see how it's unethical for them to hire you.
- SkyBelow 4y ago
  Why would it be ethical that every candidate has to go through the entire evaluation process? It would be possible that a candidate can demonstrate mastery of skill enough that they don't need to go through the same evaluation as one unable to demonstrate the same mastery. A take home test for those who don't commit code to github doesn't seem unethical. Much like how most candidates likely don't even get the chance to take the take home test because they were already eliminated.
- nebulousthree 4y ago
  Perhaps your reaction to the test is part of the test too. If you do it, you'll be evaluated on your technical performance, and if you refuse you've simply answered another question they might have about you, albeit a non-technical one. Completing the test might signal compliance, which might be exactly what they're filtering for.
- DonsDiscountGas 4y ago
  Right and if 90% of the candidates decline and the ultimate hire ends up being less than ideal, the company will (or they should) re-evaluate whether it's a good idea.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Whether or not you think a take home test is appropriate, it would be unethical of the company to let some candidates skip it. Every candidate should be evaluated the same way. Ask yourself how the company founders and initial employees got their jobs. Almost certainly not by going through their ex post facto, arbitrarily selected in-house hiring process. Was that unethical? IMO there's actually nothing wrong with hiring the first qualified applicant who shows up, and then calling off the search. Is there an ethical obligation to hire "the best possible candidate", and why? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing Is it unethical to recruit an outside person you already know is good, and not offer an open position for everyone? It it unethical to go with an internal candidate and not offer an open position for everyone? Companies tend to waste way too much time, effort, and money on hiring. It's premature optimization, the root of all evil. Uniformity is not the same as ethics. Otherwise, we'd be ethically obligated to eliminate special parking stalls for the disabled. Moreover, there's nothing inherently ethical about any given company's uniform hiring criteria. Any given set of criteria may "discriminate" in favor of certain traits and against other traits. How do you judge the ethics of the criteria themselves, in comparison to other possible uniform criteria?
  - tensor 4y ago
    > Ask yourself how the company founders and initial employees got their jobs. For founders this is a perk of being a founder. You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. > Is it unethical to recruit an outside person you already know is good, and not offer an open position for everyone? Yes, it can be. Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > For founders this is a perk of being a founder. Yes, but that didn't answer my question about ethics. > You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. I did! > Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates. How often do tech companies get a "representative" pool of candidates? But this actually goes to the other issue I raised: > there's nothing inherently ethical about any given company's uniform hiring criteria. Any given set of criteria may "discriminate" in favor of certain traits and against other traits. In particular, take-home exams that take many hours to complete tend to discriminate against certain kinds of candidates, those who don't have a lot of free time outside of work, family, etc. It's important to note that these tests are primarily used by tech companies as a screening device, not as the method for making the final hiring decision, which tends to be more subjective. They don't simply add up test scores and choose the highest scorer. Moreover, the tech industry seems to be obsessed with tests, but they're an outlier. Tons of other industries use more informal methods of hiring and don't give tests at all, much less take-home tests. Do you think they're all unethical?
- EdgeExplorer 4y ago
  It's also a legal minefield if you only use the test on some candidates. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-selection-procedures https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-sele...
paxys 4y ago
I'd hope that every adult understands that unless you have any extra leverage in a situation you aren't going to get special treatment. "I know that every other candidate for the job successfully did this exercise but I found it too difficult to even set up. Can you hire me over all of them?" What do you think the company's response will be?
- slindsey 4y ago
  And I hope that every company understands that unless you offer a sane hiring practice, you aren't going to get the best developers. "Every other candidate was desperate and rejected a thousand times so they're happy to waste their time on your pointless exercise that you won't even look at." The good candidates are busy getting hired by companies that understand how to evaluate their work based on interviews, references, and several other things that don't waste their time.
- awesomeMilou 4y ago
  Depending on the company and current economic situation, they might just have to swallow. With the layoffs right now, employers have the upper hand and candidates are well advised to just comply and do the test. But there were also reports on HN that before the layoff wave, they'd get 2-3 applications per year for a senior position. It is of course any employers right to continue applying the same hiring standards as eg. FAANG/Big Tech would. But if I were the employer, a better strategy in such a situation would be to just swallow that I can't pick and choose if I have nothing to offer for leverage :) I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that what I'm hinting at is that the job market is a _market_ and that employees don't have to put up with every bullshit depending on the market conditions.
  - sshine 4y ago
    I landed a job doing embedded Rust, and the company had been looking for someone to fill the role for 6 months with only one qualified applicant who bailed, and external contractors with C/C++ experience only. They surely were bad at looking, since neither they nor the recruiter consulted the local Rust meetup group. But there are starved companies looking for specialists out there even in an employers market.
JohnFen 4y ago
I don't think it's reasonable to expect that result, no matter how polite the applicant is. Every company has their own process for vetting applicants, and it's vanishingly rare that you can decide not to follow their process and still be considered for the position. I don't do these sorts of tests, personally (I even had one that they expected would take a full 40 hour workweek to complete!). If I'm presented with one, I know that in declining to do it, I am disqualifying myself for the position. It's just life. We all decide what our limits are, and in deciding those limits, we exclude some possibilities.
- ozim 4y ago
  Worst part is that this person wrote he already failed the test and now is looking for some shortcut.
  - sshine 4y ago
    They didn't fail the test yet. They spent longer time than preferred. And yes, they're looking for a shortcut. There is no way around fulfilling the task. Not revealing the time spent poses risk of impostor syndrome, risk of actually landing a very stressful job. Refusing to solve the task indicates that they would rather post-pone finding out, and rather risk rejection if it means not being challenged on their solving speed disqualifying them, because they think that it too likely would disqualify them.
coffeebeqn 4y ago
In a fantasy land that might be the case but being one of 10-1000 people in the early funnel, you as an applicant have zero leverage. No one has a vested interest in moving you forward when you go against their process. Heck, they’re probably happy to whittle down the pool because you had an “attitude” or some other nonsense reason. Personally I prefer a take home over a full day technical whitebording on-site which is my idea of hell. But unfortunately many companies do both in the same loop instead of one or the other

tensor 4y ago

Whether or not you think a take home test is appropriate, it would be unethical of the company to let some candidates skip it. Every candidate should be evaluated the same way.

JohnFen 4y ago
I don't really think that it would be unethical for a company to not have a uniform evaluation like that. It would be unwise, but not unethical.
rrobukef 4y ago
Why would this be? The goal of the test is to have a minimal baseline. Considering outside proof of this baseline is not unethical. If maybe it shouldn't be used to rank candidates, but you'd probably do this anyway for the final consideration.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > The goal of the test is to have a minimal baseline. How do you know that's the goal of the test?
  - lukas099 4y ago
    Even if it's not specifically that, if the company thinks you are the best available candidate (by whatever criteria they have) despite your not taking the test, I don't see how it's unethical for them to hire you.
SkyBelow 4y ago
Why would it be ethical that every candidate has to go through the entire evaluation process? It would be possible that a candidate can demonstrate mastery of skill enough that they don't need to go through the same evaluation as one unable to demonstrate the same mastery. A take home test for those who don't commit code to github doesn't seem unethical. Much like how most candidates likely don't even get the chance to take the take home test because they were already eliminated.
nebulousthree 4y ago
Perhaps your reaction to the test is part of the test too. If you do it, you'll be evaluated on your technical performance, and if you refuse you've simply answered another question they might have about you, albeit a non-technical one. Completing the test might signal compliance, which might be exactly what they're filtering for.
DonsDiscountGas 4y ago
Right and if 90% of the candidates decline and the ultimate hire ends up being less than ideal, the company will (or they should) re-evaluate whether it's a good idea.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lapcat 4y ago
> Whether or not you think a take home test is appropriate, it would be unethical of the company to let some candidates skip it. Every candidate should be evaluated the same way. Ask yourself how the company founders and initial employees got their jobs. Almost certainly not by going through their ex post facto, arbitrarily selected in-house hiring process. Was that unethical? IMO there's actually nothing wrong with hiring the first qualified applicant who shows up, and then calling off the search. Is there an ethical obligation to hire "the best possible candidate", and why? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing Is it unethical to recruit an outside person you already know is good, and not offer an open position for everyone? It it unethical to go with an internal candidate and not offer an open position for everyone? Companies tend to waste way too much time, effort, and money on hiring. It's premature optimization, the root of all evil. Uniformity is not the same as ethics. Otherwise, we'd be ethically obligated to eliminate special parking stalls for the disabled. Moreover, there's nothing inherently ethical about any given company's uniform hiring criteria. Any given set of criteria may "discriminate" in favor of certain traits and against other traits. How do you judge the ethics of the criteria themselves, in comparison to other possible uniform criteria?
- tensor 4y ago
  > Ask yourself how the company founders and initial employees got their jobs. For founders this is a perk of being a founder. You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. > Is it unethical to recruit an outside person you already know is good, and not offer an open position for everyone? Yes, it can be. Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > For founders this is a perk of being a founder. Yes, but that didn't answer my question about ethics. > You are welcome to found your own company if you wish. I did! > Especially in larger organizations that have policies around diversity and equal opportunity, it is in fact a requirement to have a large enough and representative pool of candidates. How often do tech companies get a "representative" pool of candidates? But this actually goes to the other issue I raised: > there's nothing inherently ethical about any given company's uniform hiring criteria. Any given set of criteria may "discriminate" in favor of certain traits and against other traits. In particular, take-home exams that take many hours to complete tend to discriminate against certain kinds of candidates, those who don't have a lot of free time outside of work, family, etc. It's important to note that these tests are primarily used by tech companies as a screening device, not as the method for making the final hiring decision, which tends to be more subjective. They don't simply add up test scores and choose the highest scorer. Moreover, the tech industry seems to be obsessed with tests, but they're an outlier. Tons of other industries use more informal methods of hiring and don't give tests at all, much less take-home tests. Do you think they're all unethical?
EdgeExplorer 4y ago
It's also a legal minefield if you only use the test on some candidates. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-selection-procedures https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-sele...

paxys 4y ago

I'd hope that every adult understands that unless you have any extra leverage in a situation you aren't going to get special treatment. "I know that every other candidate for the job successfully did this exercise but I found it too difficult to even set up. Can you hire me over all of them?" What do you think the company's response will be?

slindsey 4y ago
And I hope that every company understands that unless you offer a sane hiring practice, you aren't going to get the best developers. "Every other candidate was desperate and rejected a thousand times so they're happy to waste their time on your pointless exercise that you won't even look at." The good candidates are busy getting hired by companies that understand how to evaluate their work based on interviews, references, and several other things that don't waste their time.
awesomeMilou 4y ago
Depending on the company and current economic situation, they might just have to swallow. With the layoffs right now, employers have the upper hand and candidates are well advised to just comply and do the test. But there were also reports on HN that before the layoff wave, they'd get 2-3 applications per year for a senior position. It is of course any employers right to continue applying the same hiring standards as eg. FAANG/Big Tech would. But if I were the employer, a better strategy in such a situation would be to just swallow that I can't pick and choose if I have nothing to offer for leverage :) I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that what I'm hinting at is that the job market is a _market_ and that employees don't have to put up with every bullshit depending on the market conditions.
- sshine 4y ago
  I landed a job doing embedded Rust, and the company had been looking for someone to fill the role for 6 months with only one qualified applicant who bailed, and external contractors with C/C++ experience only. They surely were bad at looking, since neither they nor the recruiter consulted the local Rust meetup group. But there are starved companies looking for specialists out there even in an employers market.

JohnFen 4y ago

I don't think it's reasonable to expect that result, no matter how polite the applicant is. Every company has their own process for vetting applicants, and it's vanishingly rare that you can decide not to follow their process and still be considered for the position. I don't do these sorts of tests, personally (I even had one that they expected would take a full 40 hour workweek to complete!). If I'm presented with one, I know that in declining to do it, I am disqualifying myself for the position. It's just life. We all decide what our limits are, and in deciding those limits, we exclude some possibilities.

ozim 4y ago
Worst part is that this person wrote he already failed the test and now is looking for some shortcut.
- sshine 4y ago
  They didn't fail the test yet. They spent longer time than preferred. And yes, they're looking for a shortcut. There is no way around fulfilling the task. Not revealing the time spent poses risk of impostor syndrome, risk of actually landing a very stressful job. Refusing to solve the task indicates that they would rather post-pone finding out, and rather risk rejection if it means not being challenged on their solving speed disqualifying them, because they think that it too likely would disqualify them.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

In a fantasy land that might be the case but being one of 10-1000 people in the early funnel, you as an applicant have zero leverage. No one has a vested interest in moving you forward when you go against their process. Heck, they’re probably happy to whittle down the pool because you had an “attitude” or some other nonsense reason. Personally I prefer a take home over a full day technical whitebording on-site which is my idea of hell. But unfortunately many companies do both in the same loop instead of one or the other