5 ms·

> the other side of the coin is that maybe they're just getting swamped with so many applications they can't take the time to thoughtfully answer each one Mayb

> the other side of the coin is that maybe they're just getting swamped with so many applications they can't take the time to thoughtfully answer each one Maybe. At the point in the process where you're seeing someone's project, you've already spent time probably phone screening them, sending them the project, hopefully reviewing it. It takes relatively little time to write a quick sentence or two in review of the assessment. It would be nice even if they didn't look at the project and just said "sorry, we didn't have time to look at your project because we're moving forward with other candidates".

solardev 3y ago
That's fair enough. Well, it's a good lesson to have gone through though. If I'm ever in a situation where I am asked to evaluate others in a similar fashion, I'll be sure to leave detailed feedback (if they want it), now that I know what it feels like.
labcomputer 3y ago
> It takes relatively little time to write a quick sentence or two in review of the assessment Not just that: At every job where I interviewed candidates, HR expects some kind of feedback beyond just "hire"/"no hire". At least some bullet points of highs and lows, red flags, etc. If nothing else, this helps protect the company from false allegations of illegal discrimination by having documentation for why a particular candidate was rejected. It also helps recruiters to know if they're finding candidates who are "close to what we want" or "not even in the ballpark". Now, I know that some interviewers can be fairly blunt in their feedback, so you'd not necessarily want to just copy-paste it to the candidate, but the point is: that feedback already exists. The recruiter/HR just needs to (maybe) sand off some of the rough edges.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
If they're swamped, and they're asking all the ones they're swamped with to do a project that takes hours, that's abuse. Why abuse? Well, let's say they have three solid candidates. They ask each to do an assignment. Would I do a 6-hour project for a 33% chance at a job? Maybe, especially if I really wanted that particular job. Now let's say they have 30 candidates that they ask. Would I do 6 hours of throwaway work for a 3% chance at a job? No - not knowingly. If I'm an average candidate, I'm going to have to do that 30 times to land a job. That's 180 hours, or more than four full-time weeks of throwaway work. That's an abusive process. Could I spend just as much time interviewing? I could, but there's a difference. If I'm interviewing with you, you're there talking to me. You can't waste my time without wasting your own. Whereas with a take-home assignment, you can waste my time but waste little or no of your own. As a result, interviewers (usually) pay some attention to not doing needless interviews, but pay less attention to not asking for needless take-home assignments.
- solardev 3y ago
  I see your point, that there's a significant information and time asymmetry there in favor of the employer. That said, though, I also think the take-homes are a much more enjoyable use of my time than running through interview gauntlets with people who don't even work in the same team or in tech at all (recruiters, HR screeners, upper level bosses, whatever). At least code presents a somewhat objective metric I can be measured against, as opposed to random people's opinions about me after talking for ten minutes. Those sorts of interviews feel more like theater than assessments. I'm good at them, but I don't feel like they're a good way to gauge a candidate's effectiveness, including my own. With the best take-home I did (not this 12-hour one I was just talking about), we met right afterward to discuss the pros and cons of my assignment, what went well, what could use more care, etc. It was more of a discussion, like "Why did you do X this way" and "Did you consider Y when you chose this?", followed by a segue into how the take-home relates to the actual products they were building, and a high-level discussion about how I'd implement similar patterns in a production app. I did end up getting that job and loving it. The process never felt exploitative, and the team ended up being amazing. I'm still thankful for the person who gave me that take-home to prove myself, vs the hours of pointless recruiter chats before the assignment. But yes, they shouldn't be 6-hour take-homes... that's too much to ask of an unpaid candidate. A reasonable take-home should take 2-3 hours max for a candidate of median skill, IMO. As an aside, my 12-hour one was my own fault for not having worked on that specific problem enough (web animations in SVG or canvas), but I was happy to be figuring out a new challenge after my last job got too easy and boring.

solardev 3y ago

That's fair enough. Well, it's a good lesson to have gone through though. If I'm ever in a situation where I am asked to evaluate others in a similar fashion, I'll be sure to leave detailed feedback (if they want it), now that I know what it feels like.

labcomputer 3y ago

> It takes relatively little time to write a quick sentence or two in review of the assessment Not just that: At every job where I interviewed candidates, HR expects some kind of feedback beyond just "hire"/"no hire". At least some bullet points of highs and lows, red flags, etc. If nothing else, this helps protect the company from false allegations of illegal discrimination by having documentation for why a particular candidate was rejected. It also helps recruiters to know if they're finding candidates who are "close to what we want" or "not even in the ballpark". Now, I know that some interviewers can be fairly blunt in their feedback, so you'd not necessarily want to just copy-paste it to the candidate, but the point is: that feedback already exists. The recruiter/HR just needs to (maybe) sand off some of the rough edges.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

If they're swamped, and they're asking all the ones they're swamped with to do a project that takes hours, that's abuse. Why abuse? Well, let's say they have three solid candidates. They ask each to do an assignment. Would I do a 6-hour project for a 33% chance at a job? Maybe, especially if I really wanted that particular job. Now let's say they have 30 candidates that they ask. Would I do 6 hours of throwaway work for a 3% chance at a job? No - not knowingly. If I'm an average candidate, I'm going to have to do that 30 times to land a job. That's 180 hours, or more than four full-time weeks of throwaway work. That's an abusive process. Could I spend just as much time interviewing? I could, but there's a difference. If I'm interviewing with you, you're there talking to me. You can't waste my time without wasting your own. Whereas with a take-home assignment, you can waste my time but waste little or no of your own. As a result, interviewers (usually) pay some attention to not doing needless interviews, but pay less attention to not asking for needless take-home assignments.

solardev 3y ago
I see your point, that there's a significant information and time asymmetry there in favor of the employer. That said, though, I also think the take-homes are a much more enjoyable use of my time than running through interview gauntlets with people who don't even work in the same team or in tech at all (recruiters, HR screeners, upper level bosses, whatever). At least code presents a somewhat objective metric I can be measured against, as opposed to random people's opinions about me after talking for ten minutes. Those sorts of interviews feel more like theater than assessments. I'm good at them, but I don't feel like they're a good way to gauge a candidate's effectiveness, including my own. With the best take-home I did (not this 12-hour one I was just talking about), we met right afterward to discuss the pros and cons of my assignment, what went well, what could use more care, etc. It was more of a discussion, like "Why did you do X this way" and "Did you consider Y when you chose this?", followed by a segue into how the take-home relates to the actual products they were building, and a high-level discussion about how I'd implement similar patterns in a production app. I did end up getting that job and loving it. The process never felt exploitative, and the team ended up being amazing. I'm still thankful for the person who gave me that take-home to prove myself, vs the hours of pointless recruiter chats before the assignment. But yes, they shouldn't be 6-hour take-homes... that's too much to ask of an unpaid candidate. A reasonable take-home should take 2-3 hours max for a candidate of median skill, IMO. As an aside, my 12-hour one was my own fault for not having worked on that specific problem enough (web animations in SVG or canvas), but I was happy to be figuring out a new challenge after my last job got too easy and boring.