The latest trend for tech interviews: Days of unpaid homework

Post by _pmf_ » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 12:59 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #855

_pmf_ wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apart from getting a candidate to actually pump out some code, even trivially, we don't really have a way to de-facto verify that the person says they can do what they say they can do, short of a personal reference from someone, say, in the company already that knows and has worked with the person in the past. How do hospitals make sure that their surgeons can do surgery without having them do surgery? Do they have…

If it's anything like white boarding, then they would bring in a game of operation and have the surgeons pull out all the pieces. If the buzzer goes off, well they just aren't good surgeons.

Post by Clubber » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 1:07 PM UTC

matthewmacleod wrote: post #142

deepGem wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Just a week or two of contract work will tell you if the candidate is a fit or not. A 30 minute phone screen will tell you if a candidate is worthy of a contract. I think companies don't do this because a. They don't want to pay and b. They don't get to gloat 'we have a super rigorous hiring process'

Companies don't do this because it will wildly cut down their candidate pool. There is _literally no chance_ that I am going to leave an existing job for a "week or two" contract with a company. If that's part of their hiring process, I will simply look elsewhere.

Post by eadmund » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 1:10 PM UTC

ereyes01 wrote: post #779

monocasa wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to hate it, but have now performed enough interviews of supposedly senior devs with decades of experience. I've literally seen someone who did firmware for the space shuttle grind for 45 minutes on fizz buzz without making progress. Like, I'd they struggle for ten minutes or so, I take a step back and say "Ok, screw syntax, let's just vaguely talk about what needs to happen and mock up some pseudo code.". Even…

Said space shuttle firmware engineer probably never had to solve a pop-quiz problem on a whiteboard. It's much more likely that he/she deliberated for weeks about a simple change with the rest of their team, and perhaps even with the person/astronaut they might kill if the change had a bad bug. Who cares if this person can't solve fizz-buzz on the whiteboard? That's probably not even a relevant skill to the job openi…

Post by eadmund » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 1:14 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #456

stupidcar wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hiring process is a response to the fact that employers cannot trust a single word candidates say about their experience. This isn't paranoia. Literally, most candidates we see cannot code, even when they supposed have a decade or more of industry experience. If the industry wasn't so full of lying incompetents, it wouldn't be an issue.

The hiring process is a response to the fact that employers cannot trust a single word candidates say about their experience. This isn't paranoia Here's the thing tho': my CV is honest and my track record is pretty good: some small companies and some name-brand, well respected in their industries, known for probing interviews, over about 20 years. There may be some bad actors in the global candidate pool. But serious…

Post by ashelmire » Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 1:23 PM UTC

newobj wrote: post #301

It's unreal that will people will bitch and moan about having to invest a couple days, maybe even a whole week in cramming/prepping/interviewing, to perform on-demand, one time, for a job that realistically will earn them $100k, $200k, $300k, $400k+ a year. Meanwhile people that work harder than us 5 days a week for the entire duration of their career will make 1/2, 1/4, 1/6th, or less of income, with none of the per…