4 ms·

Is it really a “nightmare” to have to endure a take home test and 5 hours of interviews for a job that will pay you like $250K/yr to start? Guess what, plenty o

by paxys 3y ago

Is it really a “nightmare” to have to endure a take home test and 5 hours of interviews for a job that will pay you like $250K/yr to start? Guess what, plenty of people want to do that job, and people aren’t going to hire you just by looking at your resume and having a quick conversation. If you don’t like it, great, less competition for the rest of us.

pdimitar 3y ago
Almost nobody gets $250K annually even if senior, and 5 hours is a gross underestimate of the total time spent per interview process. With such a wrong premise your argument does not hold weight.
ravenstine 3y ago
How many of us do you think are actually starting with $250k and land the job with just 5 hours of interviews? You are also excluding the amount of time it takes merely job hunting and jumping on call screenings before even getting to an interview.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Here's the thing about take-home tests. Let's say I put 5 hours into it. That's all right, if I get the job. But let's say I don't. I don't get the next one, either. Let's say it takes me 20 tries to land a job. Well, that's 100 hours just on take-home exams. That's 2.5 full-time weeks on take-home exams. So, no. It's a nightmare, and it's one I won't subject myself to. I mean, for one job, I might if I really wanted that particular job. In general, though, no. Just no. See, with an interview, if you waste my time, you also waste your own - you have skin in the game too. But if you give me a take-home exam, and I spend 5 hours on it, and you never look at it, it costs you zero. Or you give it to 30 people and spend two minutes looking at each persons' results. You can waste my time without wasting your own. And I have a strong suspicion that interviewers do in fact waste applicants' time with take-homes. They don't bother to be efficient with the interviewers' time.

by paxys 3y ago

pdimitar 3y ago

Almost nobody gets $250K annually even if senior, and 5 hours is a gross underestimate of the total time spent per interview process. With such a wrong premise your argument does not hold weight.

ravenstine 3y ago

How many of us do you think are actually starting with $250k and land the job with just 5 hours of interviews? You are also excluding the amount of time it takes merely job hunting and jumping on call screenings before even getting to an interview.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Here's the thing about take-home tests. Let's say I put 5 hours into it. That's all right, if I get the job. But let's say I don't. I don't get the next one, either. Let's say it takes me 20 tries to land a job. Well, that's 100 hours just on take-home exams. That's 2.5 full-time weeks on take-home exams. So, no. It's a nightmare, and it's one I won't subject myself to. I mean, for one job, I might if I really wanted that particular job. In general, though, no. Just no. See, with an interview, if you waste my time, you also waste your own - you have skin in the game too. But if you give me a take-home exam, and I spend 5 hours on it, and you never look at it, it costs you zero. Or you give it to 30 people and spend two minutes looking at each persons' results. You can waste my time without wasting your own. And I have a strong suspicion that interviewers do in fact waste applicants' time with take-homes. They don't bother to be efficient with the interviewers' time.