4 ms·

This only applies if the take-home interview is obligatory. I agree that obligatory take-home interviews are unfair (I feel the same about trial periods). They

by ammon 11y ago

This only applies if the take-home interview is obligatory. I agree that obligatory take-home interviews are unfair (I feel the same about trial periods). They work (they're probably more accurate than a standard interview), but they take too much time from the applicant (and will thus scare away many of the best people). As an option, however, I totally disagree. There's a significant percentage of good programmers who are ill served by standard interviews. Those people want this.

alanh 11y ago
Yes, that is a very good point. Part of being good at hiring is becoming able to work with different kinds of people with different needs and preferences.
geebee 11y ago
You know, while I agree that these problems are mitigated somewhat by making the exam optional, I don't think this alone solves all the problems associated with this approach. I still think that asking candidates to spend, say, 5-7 hours on something is a big deal, even if you give them a choice to take a different path. I'm not inherently opposed to technical tests, either in person or take home exams. I believe that many exam-based institutions adhere to a code (probably unwritten) that grants certain rights to the examinee. Think about exams in college, where stakes can actually be quite high. Think about exams at a university. Typically the subject matter and nature of exam questions is available in advance. The grader is highly competent in the field. An associated study path is available for the exam. The exam will be graded and scored, and those scores will be communicated to the student within a set time frame. Feedback will be provided to the student. The exam is part of achieving a lasting credential, such as credit for a course on a transcript. None of these things exist in technical exams, and in many ways, this increases the stress. Merely making an exam "optional" doesn't erase all these problems. I think this is the core problem with technical exams, they contain all of the stress for the student, but have none of those rights that I believe exist in universities and other exam-based institutions for a good reason.

by ammon 11y ago

alanh 11y ago

Yes, that is a very good point. Part of being good at hiring is becoming able to work with different kinds of people with different needs and preferences.

geebee 11y ago

You know, while I agree that these problems are mitigated somewhat by making the exam optional, I don't think this alone solves all the problems associated with this approach. I still think that asking candidates to spend, say, 5-7 hours on something is a big deal, even if you give them a choice to take a different path. I'm not inherently opposed to technical tests, either in person or take home exams. I believe that many exam-based institutions adhere to a code (probably unwritten) that grants certain rights to the examinee. Think about exams in college, where stakes can actually be quite high. Think about exams at a university. Typically the subject matter and nature of exam questions is available in advance. The grader is highly competent in the field. An associated study path is available for the exam. The exam will be graded and scored, and those scores will be communicated to the student within a set time frame. Feedback will be provided to the student. The exam is part of achieving a lasting credential, such as credit for a course on a transcript. None of these things exist in technical exams, and in many ways, this increases the stress. Merely making an exam "optional" doesn't erase all these problems. I think this is the core problem with technical exams, they contain all of the stress for the student, but have none of those rights that I believe exist in universities and other exam-based institutions for a good reason.