4 ms·

When I was interviewing entry level programmers at my last job, we gave them an assignment that should only take a few hours, but we basically didn't care about

When I was interviewing entry level programmers at my last job, we gave them an assignment that should only take a few hours, but we basically didn't care about the code at all. Instead, we were looking to see if they followed instructions, and if they left anything out. I never had a chance to test it out, since we hadn't hired anyone new in so long, but ChatGPT/etc would almost always fail this exam because of how bad it is at making sure everything was included. And bad programmers also failed it. It always left us with a few candidates that paid attention, and from there we figure if they can do that, they can learn the rest. It seemed to work quite well. I was recently laid off from that company, and now I'm realizing that I really want to see what current-day candidates would turn in. Oh well.

z3t4 2y ago
For those tests I never follow the rules, I just make something quick and dirty because I refuse to spend unpaid hours. In the interview the first question is why I didnt follow the instructions, and they think my reason is fair. Companies seem to think that we program just for fun and ask to make a full blown app... also underestimating the time candidates actually spend making it.
- MathCodeLove 2y ago
  If you’re spending the time applying and submitting something then you might as well spend the extra 30 minutes or so to do it right, no?
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    Any time someone says ‘should only take a few hours’ they’re far underestimating the time it actually takes.
  - halfcat 2y ago
    Not if you’re applying to hundreds, or thousands of jobs. Unless you know someone, it’s a quantity game.
    - dahart 2y ago
      I’ve screened a lot of resumes and given a lot of interviews over the years, and it’s usually obvious when people are trying the scattershot approach, they just don’t match. I feel like treating it like a quantity game is unlikely to improve your odds, and tbh spamming out hundreds or thousands of applications sounds like a miserable way to spend time. You could spend that time meeting and talking to people. I’ve never applied to more than 2 jobs at once, jobs that I actually want, and never had trouble getting at least one of them (and it still takes time and effort and some coding and interviews).
      - nsxwolf 2y ago
        It wouldn’t be obvious they’re using a scattershot approach when they’re a good match, though. I don’t see the downside.
        dahart 2y ago
        Maybe not at the resume screening phase, but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company. Some people get lucky, sure, but the downside is that you have to get lucky, it’s wasting valuable time on low probability events. If you’re familiar with the statistical process of importance sampling, in my experience on both sides of the interview table, it’s effective and worthwhile to spend more time curating higher quality samples than to scatter and hope.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company. Can you really blame them? If you're not a houshold name, why would you expect someone to spend hours researching your specific company? On the other hand, it can come off as creepy if your a small company and suddenly someone nerds out about how your CEO said this one thing at a talk years ago and knows your lead has cancer based on his personal blog. I'd rather just treat it as a transaction of my skills and services for money. We are not a family (multiple layoffs have taught me so) > it’s effective and worthwhile to spend more time curating higher quality samples than to scatter and hope. Not in this market. Too many ghost jobs, too many people ghosting after multiple rounds. Too many hiring freezes when you spend a month talking with a company. If you want respect from candidates, don't disrespect them.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It's never been 30 minutes for me. Even leetcode timed exams tended to be 60-90 minutes. recently I spent a good 10 hours making a crossword solver. Hiring freeze a few days after I turned it in. I completely get GP's mentality.

z3t4 2y ago

For those tests I never follow the rules, I just make something quick and dirty because I refuse to spend unpaid hours. In the interview the first question is why I didnt follow the instructions, and they think my reason is fair. Companies seem to think that we program just for fun and ask to make a full blown app... also underestimating the time candidates actually spend making it.

MathCodeLove 2y ago
If you’re spending the time applying and submitting something then you might as well spend the extra 30 minutes or so to do it right, no?
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Any time someone says ‘should only take a few hours’ they’re far underestimating the time it actually takes.
- halfcat 2y ago
  Not if you’re applying to hundreds, or thousands of jobs. Unless you know someone, it’s a quantity game.
  - dahart 2y ago
    I’ve screened a lot of resumes and given a lot of interviews over the years, and it’s usually obvious when people are trying the scattershot approach, they just don’t match. I feel like treating it like a quantity game is unlikely to improve your odds, and tbh spamming out hundreds or thousands of applications sounds like a miserable way to spend time. You could spend that time meeting and talking to people. I’ve never applied to more than 2 jobs at once, jobs that I actually want, and never had trouble getting at least one of them (and it still takes time and effort and some coding and interviews).
    - nsxwolf 2y ago
      It wouldn’t be obvious they’re using a scattershot approach when they’re a good match, though. I don’t see the downside.
      - dahart 2y ago
        Maybe not at the resume screening phase, but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company. Some people get lucky, sure, but the downside is that you have to get lucky, it’s wasting valuable time on low probability events. If you’re familiar with the statistical process of importance sampling, in my experience on both sides of the interview table, it’s effective and worthwhile to spend more time curating higher quality samples than to scatter and hope.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >but it’s usually still obvious once the interviews start when people aren’t interested in your specific company. Can you really blame them? If you're not a houshold name, why would you expect someone to spend hours researching your specific company? On the other hand, it can come off as creepy if your a small company and suddenly someone nerds out about how your CEO said this one thing at a talk years ago and knows your lead has cancer based on his personal blog. I'd rather just treat it as a transaction of my skills and services for money. We are not a family (multiple layoffs have taught me so) > it’s effective and worthwhile to spend more time curating higher quality samples than to scatter and hope. Not in this market. Too many ghost jobs, too many people ghosting after multiple rounds. Too many hiring freezes when you spend a month talking with a company. If you want respect from candidates, don't disrespect them.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  It's never been 30 minutes for me. Even leetcode timed exams tended to be 60-90 minutes. recently I spent a good 10 hours making a crossword solver. Hiring freeze a few days after I turned it in. I completely get GP's mentality.