> What's the aggregate result of testing for fizzbuzz? If you pass you go to the next stage, if not, you're out? The point of fizzbuzz is that it is so simple t

> What's the aggregate result of testing for fizzbuzz? If you pass you go to the next stage, if not, you're out? The point of fizzbuzz is that it is so simple that if you are capable of any programming at all, you cannot not pass it. My assertion is that an aggregate result of fizzbuzz and co. is to narrow the field in areas other than what you're explicitly testing for. "It will sort out the ones that can't program at all, it won't say anything at all about the ones that can." <- yes, and it will also say a lot to all candidates (for good or bad) about your priorities in hiring. Maybe that's fine, but for me at least (and judging from other comments in this thread, others as well) it would be a turn off. So you would potentially lose me and others as candidates, even though we would pass the test. That's my point. > But if you can't code a solution to the very simplest imaginable of problems, we do not want you, and I don't see how it's not suicide for a start-up to think differently. I'm sure you know much more about hiring for startups than I do. But in a very general sense, I don't see screening tests as encouraging creativity, if anything they do the opposite. Others have made similar points in this thread. Maybe they're necessary, but they have costs. I see your point though about a startup not having the same resources to absorb the damage from a bad hire.