121–130 of 243 posts
You're complaining that, to get a job, you have to demonstrate your ability to do the job, in a standardized way so the employer can compare you to other candidates with the merest hint of objectivity. For a little (imperfect) contrast, here's a quote from an article about auditioning for the Baltimore Symphony: > In the audition I took in October of 2014 for the Baltimore Symphony, I began preparing the required aud…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Shortage” is an economic term of art, so I won’t use it here. But it’s likely true that there is lot of valuable, economic-growth-producing work that could be profitable if a software engineer costs $100k/year instead of $500k/year. Businesses that lie on the margin of profitability are likely to feel that it’s hard to find good talent. Of course, it’s bad for us existing software engineers if the supply increases a…
You just said that there's lots of valuable work that could be done, but your example of work that could be done is work isn't valuable enough to do unless software engineers get paid (in the SF Bay Area) notably less than a dental hygienist. I like having clean teeth. If someone can make more as a dental hygienist, why on earth would it be valuable to society if they instead worked as a software engineer for less mo…
> A disproportionate amount of time is often spent trying to deduce the requirements of the challenge.
Deducing requirements is a job skill at least as valuable as the actual coding! There's nothing worse than perfectly polished code that solves entirely the wrong problem.
And the author's proposed alternatives seem even worse:
> Ask pertinent questions.
OK, but that selects for people who can build a compelling narrative around their work. This is not the worst skill to have, but it's not entirely aligned with the actual work requirements, and subject to cultural and sometimes gender biases.
> Have a probationary period
I strongly dislike that. At-will employment is a reality in many places, and probationary periods are a reality in even more places, but they should be seen as a last resort, rather than a routine filter. I don't want co-workers to show up and be kicked out within a few weeks. I don't want to move 8 time zones, enroll my kids in new schools, sell my house, to be told after two weeks "Hmm, this does not seem to be working out".
> Walk through their existing projects
As has been mentioned numerous times on HN, that's at least as discriminatory as take-home exams, if not more so. You may spend your free time with your kids, or welding kinetic sculptures instead of programming. That's a perfectly valid choice. People who interview forensic pathologists don't expect them to cut up bodies at home in their spare time.
And generally, showing existing projects from previous employment should be, and is, grounds for immediate disqualification.
> Ask them to build something – anything!
That strikes me as considerably harder and considerably more subjective to evaluate than a standard take home exam.
> Pair program / Focus on their ability to learn
That's reminiscent of one technique I used to like: Show the candidate a piece of product-like code, and ask them questions about various pieces in it (programming language constructs, algorithms used).
It's not unreasonable to ask someone to demonstrate their capabilities. Just make it interesting, relevant to the job and most importantly: short. Whatever time work sample testing requires should replace interview time, not add on to it. 2 hours is a reasonable ask. Oh, and you can't ask people to invest time in a work sample test unless you've already invested a significant amount of YOUR time on in-person interviews. [2]
screening interview -> coding assignment -> maybe more interviews? = not cool
screening interview -> first round with hiring manager -> coding assignment -> review assignment with candidate -> maybe more interviews? = cool
Sources:
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232564809_The_Valid...
[2] Me. I'm a ex-Netflix software engineer, now run a tech recruiting company (www.facet.net). I've seen hundreds of technical interview processes across many industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard a variant of this repeatedly. A company justifies technical exam style interviews on the grounds that many people who look good on paper "can't code". Meaning, can't program fizz buzz. Can't write a method or function. Can't write a loop, or an if/else conditional. But I can do all these things. I've gotten bounced from my interviews because (this was the official reason, anyway) I didn't get far enough wi…
In our case our its based on our actual interview experience with candidates. We've been actively evolving our process and calibrating expectation based on the candidates that have come in. We've actually simplified the interview question considerably (as I mentioned the solution doesn't even require you write new logic, you can refactor existing logic that's provided). But we still see candidates struggle with the b…
> Have a probationary period That seems very taxing on the company. I'd rather screen the candidate before committing to anything via interview/coding challenge, etc... The take-home coding challenge seems like a good idea -- less pressure than coding during the interview and allows the interviewer to assess the "real life" performance. > Ask them to build something – anything! That's great, but a big part of working…
The probationary period seems incredibly stressful for the employee. If I am currently employed I would never switch to a role that uses a probationary period as a significant evaluation step because of the risks of leaving my stable employment, and not passing your probationary period. As an employer I wouldn’t want to limit my selection to people that either are unemployed or have a higher personal risk tolerance t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In San Francisco, there's plenty of tech talent available at 500k a year. There's remarkably little available at minimum wage, though. Complaining to congress that there is a shortage of IT talent is so common in American politics that it has become its own unique form of performance art. For instance, during the magic section of the act, companies make a labor shortage magically appear without any mention of wages,…
“Shortage” is an economic term of art, so I won’t use it here. But it’s likely true that there is lot of valuable, economic-growth-producing work that could be profitable if a software engineer costs $100k/year instead of $500k/year. Businesses that lie on the margin of profitability are likely to feel that it’s hard to find good talent. Of course, it’s bad for us existing software engineers if the supply increases a…
The idea is an employer-side argument to counter the labour-side demand for higher wages: Don't have the wages to high, otherwise we go bankrupt and can't employ you any longer.
But programmers are already well employed, and software companies aren't really suffering. Cheaper programmers won't make website less bloated, won't make us figure out what to do with GPT-3, won't find a useful application for blockchains, won't make Windows 10 less moronic, won't make ad-tech less harmful, won't make the tech recruiters and the non-technical folk around software projects more competent...it would simply kill one of the few fields of employments that still pay well!
Look at construction. Did cheap immigrant labour make rents feel low in many areas? No, market forces drive up prices and owners keep the profit.
What I love (sarcasm) is companies that just need basic line of business apps, but want you to complete a coding challenge navigating graphs and trees in constant, nlogn time, etc. I find it hilarious and often ask, "Can you explain to me how solving this challenge applies to what you do day to day?" They say.... "That's a really good question..." Then I watch them squirm as they have no idea how to explain a real wo…
how about "we found a strong correlation between who can complete coding challenge do well on the job. We understand that correlation doesny imply causation; but we and the majority of the industry havent found anything better yet. We also understand that we are potentially missing out on good candidates who dont generally fare well in coding challenge; but thats a trade off we are ok with"
I usually tell interviewers I don't do per-interview assignments. I'll often e-mail them a list of current open source taks I'm working on, a paragraph with good requirements or a linked issue from an issue tracker. I'll list the programing language and framework and ask them to select from the list. I'll complete my task, with tests, and do a full presentation. Universally I get turned down. "You have to do our assi…