4 ms·
That topic ("People do stuff at home for an interview") is a topic that comes up again and again. My last reply [1] is about a month old and feels still valid.
by darklajid 11y ago
That topic ("People do stuff at home for an interview") is a topic that comes up again and again. My last reply [1] is about a month old and feels still valid.
Don't state that 'take home tests are the worst'. That is - failing to find better words - crap. If that is the ONLY option, I understand that this might be not for you. But - that's not the case here as far as I can tell. You, as a person interested to interview, can opt in. That is awesome.
Now - you might not be the type of guy that would _want_ to opt in, but please refrain from these absolute statements. No, that's not the worst. In fact, it's probably the _best_ option for a number of people (I myself would - if I'd want to interview with this service - opt for the home project).
I fail to understand how this 'bash the home work' attitude comes up again and again. Yes, don't work for free. But if you're doing a 3h whiteboard marathon or work from your own chair? And you pick which one you prefer? I don't get the hate here..
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9770737
- nsfyn55 11y agoOh as a number of people have indicated its bad for the company because the candidate can work with someone else and produce a glowing submission. I have helped a number of people do these some that have gotten the job. its bad for the interviewee. They may spend 10-15 hours on this and get rejected for no reason at all. Do you think the person reviewing the submission is putting multiple hours into it. Doubtful. If the intent is truly(and I mean truly) help individuals that struggle with traditional interviewing techniques then kudos. Demonstrate this by allowing candidates to interview in a way that is comfortable for them(including not taking your take home test) If its the company saying "my time is more valuable than yours. Do this assignment then we'll talk" then no thanks.
- darklajid 11y agoIf you were able to explain your 'cheated' solution to someone and they could reliably cheat the interviewer, I'd say you .. taught them. GJ! The interviewee (the vowel count makes me dizzy) can choose what he/she prefers. So that argument is weird. Maybe (if that's your point) it might be beneficial to go for the face to face interview, for direct feedback? But .. some people just _cannot_ do that. You're not talking "Ah, they didn't respond. If you'd just had visited them on-site..." here. It's "opt for the home project or don't apply". Which is empowering the candidate.
- nsfyn55 11y agoI think you are missing the point. If you are ok with a "Cheated" response then you are really hiring a candidate based on their network of experts. An equally or more qualified candidate could submit a less stellar answer only because their dad isn't an emeritus chair at a University.
- bhntr3 11y agoUnfortunately, most companies aren't comfortable replacing an onsite with a work sample (or take home.) So, it's just additive. It's not "the worst" in relation to other interview options. It's the worst because it's usually in addition to other interview options. I just stopped doing take homes on my last round of interviewing. Just not worth it. It was always just added work. It never replaced a stage of the process. If you think about it, it makes sense though. Very few companies would hire people directly based on the strength of their github account or their topcoder rank. So, if they won't do that, then what extra information does a take home really provide? Companies seem to recognize that they want to hire people who do good work and that good work isn't done in an interview setting. But very few companies are willing to just analyze the candidate's work. They want to subjectively judge the person.
- darklajid 11y agoAgreed (and see the linked comment please): If it's not a replacement for whiteboard bullshit, then GTFO. That's insane and maybe 'the worst'. But it's important to remember that a take home exercise cannot fully replace an interview. It can replace the coding part, the whiteboard "and now we ask useless trivia questions" part. But there's no way for this work to replace the "would you fit the team" interview. Others already discuss this in different subthreads here, but basically I'd expect the company to clearly show how their process works and - ideally - filter by ~social~ criterias first ("You might fit the team, if you can code"). Doing work for free with potentially no feedback or a 'fail' in a later discussion is crap, of course.
- mdpopescu 11y agoI absolutely agree with your linked comment - I love these small tasks; even when I get rejected afterwards I still enjoy having done them.