3 ms·

I have come across this opinion as well from some excellent developers, but I can't say that I agree with it. All in all, a well-executed* technical test can b

I have come across this opinion as well from some excellent developers, but I can't say that I agree with it. All in all, a well-executed* technical test can be an excellent filter and basis for further interviews. * By well-executed, I mean - relatively language agnostic, lacking in trick questions and meaningless trivia, and being open to multiple good answers. The intention is to not only check basic ability to solve simple problems, but the general approach and programming style of the individual interviewed. Past experience is often vaguely stated in CVs and looks great on paper, but can be disingenous. It takes a thorough two-way discussion which is customised to each individual to reveal this, however. Some people have excellent and highly visible past achievements, but not everyone does. I wouldn't throw out a CV simply because the individual doesn't have any open source code to show me, nor do they have any awards from companies they have worked for (which is often more about self-marketing than actual ability). I guess your mileage may vary based on the position that's in question and the companies involved, but I've seen some shocking discrepancies between CVs and actual programming ability. Even worse than the usual "fizz-buzz" statistics that get thrown around.

ukd1 13y ago
Agreed re discrepancies: I've had CS Majors / Masters fail, yet my self-taught CEO passes. This amazes me. [edit; the cs majors amaze me]
- jheriko 13y ago
  why does it amaze you? my experience of 'self taught' individuals in the general case is that they have a rich understanding of the subject by necessity. conversely my experience of education is that it trains you to solve education style problems - which are essentially absent from the real world - where being able to invent and implement a slightly broken solution in an hour with 30 seconds notice is much more valuable than being able to solve a problem you know about far in advance and are given loads of information and guidance to help in preparation for it. on the other hand if i wanted someone to do research then a CS major might be a better choice. :)
  - ukd1 13y ago
    I should have been clearer; it doesn't amaze me someone self taught could do it, but it does that CS major couldn't.
- danielbarla 13y ago
  My own surprise was mostly to do with highly paid individuals with a great track record on paper, but who seemed to be barely able to solve basic problems (to the level of making me wonder whether they had actually written a single line of code in the past few years). Regarding CS majors, there's always the possibility of an individual being great at the theory part, but not having much programming experience. This should be rare though; during my own CS degree, we coded so much that I was frequently dreaming about code. If it's provided in the CV, I like to scan through the subjects list of the candidate - the ones who don't actually like programming seem to have an aversion to taking CS courses for elective subjects. As always though, YMMV, and it's a good idea to keep an open mind.
jheriko 13y ago
this is something i wonder. are tests to see the approach to problem solving? of the few tests i've had one was simply testing my knowledge of the C++ and STL specifications - there was no programming skill involved at all - I could have cheated if I had a physical copy of the spec handy even. this kind of test is not valuable. the other tests i've done though - even though incredibly easy i think would be more useful for seeing how i approach problem solving in general...

ukd1 13y ago

Agreed re discrepancies: I've had CS Majors / Masters fail, yet my self-taught CEO passes. This amazes me. [edit; the cs majors amaze me]

jheriko 13y ago
why does it amaze you? my experience of 'self taught' individuals in the general case is that they have a rich understanding of the subject by necessity. conversely my experience of education is that it trains you to solve education style problems - which are essentially absent from the real world - where being able to invent and implement a slightly broken solution in an hour with 30 seconds notice is much more valuable than being able to solve a problem you know about far in advance and are given loads of information and guidance to help in preparation for it. on the other hand if i wanted someone to do research then a CS major might be a better choice. :)
- ukd1 13y ago
  I should have been clearer; it doesn't amaze me someone self taught could do it, but it does that CS major couldn't.
danielbarla 13y ago
My own surprise was mostly to do with highly paid individuals with a great track record on paper, but who seemed to be barely able to solve basic problems (to the level of making me wonder whether they had actually written a single line of code in the past few years). Regarding CS majors, there's always the possibility of an individual being great at the theory part, but not having much programming experience. This should be rare though; during my own CS degree, we coded so much that I was frequently dreaming about code. If it's provided in the CV, I like to scan through the subjects list of the candidate - the ones who don't actually like programming seem to have an aversion to taking CS courses for elective subjects. As always though, YMMV, and it's a good idea to keep an open mind.

jheriko 13y ago

this is something i wonder. are tests to see the approach to problem solving? of the few tests i've had one was simply testing my knowledge of the C++ and STL specifications - there was no programming skill involved at all - I could have cheated if I had a physical copy of the spec handy even. this kind of test is not valuable. the other tests i've done though - even though incredibly easy i think would be more useful for seeing how i approach problem solving in general...