5 ms·

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 evaluat

by 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...

by 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...