3 ms·

Take home assignments are poor indicators of someone's actual software engineering ability. Unless you think of software engineers as some nameless, faceless,

Take home assignments are poor indicators of someone's actual software engineering ability. Unless you think of software engineers as some nameless, faceless, machines that you feed requirements into and get code out of. ChatGPT just highlights how poor of a job takehome assignments do at evaluating software engineering talent because it literally is a nameless, faceless, machine that you feed requirements into and get code out of. In a live interview with a competent interviewer they're watching to see your thought process, how well you articulate your thought process, how you problem solve, etc. Very little of the interview or their feedback about it should be focused on the syntax of your code. In addition to being disrespectful of a candidate's time, takehome interviews lose all those important signals.

imiric 3y ago
Hard disagree. Following your logic, individual contributors working remotely are not software engineers, which is ludicrous. The thought process or tools they used to reach a solution is not as relevant as the solution itself. Interviewers shouldn't just review syntax, but efficiency, comprehension, algorithms, creativity, and many other attributes the code itself tells you. After all, these are things we spend most of our time evaluating in code reviews. Communication is also key, which can be evaluated in a live review of the code. Programmers are usually happy to talk about their code, and here you can assess not only if they actually wrote it, but what tradeoffs they made, what difficulties they ran into, how they would further improve it, etc. This is also a chance for the interviewee to evaluate the company's code review process; what they focus on, how _they_ communicate, etc. It's incredibly valuable for both sides. What live coding assesses most is the ability to think on your feet, and performance under the spotlight. This is an unnatural state for programming, which requires deep and creative thinking, often done best in isolation. Not to mention that it's heavily biased against individuals with any form of performance or social anxiety, which sends all the wrong signals you don't want when evaluating someone's programming abilities. AI tools are simply an evolution of the software engineer's toolbelt, and if they're allowed on the job itself, they should also be allowed in the take home assignment. It's a mistake to create fake working conditions for potential hires that don't exist for actual employees. At that point you're evaluating based on some fabricated environment, and won't be certain what it's like to work with this person, which is the only thing that ultimately matters.
- CSMastermind 3y ago
  > Following your logic, individual contributors working remotely are not software engineers, which is ludicrous. Do you just send requirements to your remote engineers then get code back without ever talking to them? That seems like a really bad way to make software.
  - imiric 3y ago
    Of course not. Communication is still important, and you discuss and plan features that need to be implemented. What you don't do is hover over their shoulder and monitor how they solve problems.

imiric 3y ago

Hard disagree. Following your logic, individual contributors working remotely are not software engineers, which is ludicrous. The thought process or tools they used to reach a solution is not as relevant as the solution itself. Interviewers shouldn't just review syntax, but efficiency, comprehension, algorithms, creativity, and many other attributes the code itself tells you. After all, these are things we spend most of our time evaluating in code reviews. Communication is also key, which can be evaluated in a live review of the code. Programmers are usually happy to talk about their code, and here you can assess not only if they actually wrote it, but what tradeoffs they made, what difficulties they ran into, how they would further improve it, etc. This is also a chance for the interviewee to evaluate the company's code review process; what they focus on, how _they_ communicate, etc. It's incredibly valuable for both sides. What live coding assesses most is the ability to think on your feet, and performance under the spotlight. This is an unnatural state for programming, which requires deep and creative thinking, often done best in isolation. Not to mention that it's heavily biased against individuals with any form of performance or social anxiety, which sends all the wrong signals you don't want when evaluating someone's programming abilities. AI tools are simply an evolution of the software engineer's toolbelt, and if they're allowed on the job itself, they should also be allowed in the take home assignment. It's a mistake to create fake working conditions for potential hires that don't exist for actual employees. At that point you're evaluating based on some fabricated environment, and won't be certain what it's like to work with this person, which is the only thing that ultimately matters.

CSMastermind 3y ago
> Following your logic, individual contributors working remotely are not software engineers, which is ludicrous. Do you just send requirements to your remote engineers then get code back without ever talking to them? That seems like a really bad way to make software.
- imiric 3y ago
  Of course not. Communication is still important, and you discuss and plan features that need to be implemented. What you don't do is hover over their shoulder and monitor how they solve problems.