3 ms·
The mistake here is that the take home assignment isn't paid. Why do programmers accept to spend all this time on a process that might end up in a rejection? I
by imiric 3y ago
The mistake here is that the take home assignment isn't paid.
Why do programmers accept to spend all this time on a process that might end up in a rejection? I don't mean just on take home assignments, but on the grueling in-person process that can take days or weeks as well. It's a collosal time sink with an unknown outcome.
The interviewers are paid for their time spent interviewing, so it's only fair that companies respect the time of the interviewee, and pay them as well, whether they pass or not.
We often forget that interviews are a two-way street. The person is interviewing the company, as much as they're interviewing them. The risk if it doesn't work out should be taken equally by both sides.
If a company doesn't respect your time, it's probably a signal that they will disrespect you in other ways as well once you start working there, so it's best to move on early.
- Groxx 3y agoWhile I largely agree with the sentiment: this kind of system is enormously open for abuse - it directly pays abusers. And being flooded by applications by abusers doesn't improve the overall state of things. It's a nice dream, but I really don't think it's feasible outside extremely niche scenarios. And those can be (and often are) quite a bit more flexible in how things are run already.
- imiric 3y agoMaybe, but the interview process doesn't formally start before an initial screening. Once both parties are willing to commit to the interview, their time should be equally compensated.