31–40 of 271 posts
I've been a part of two great alternatives: a pair programming session with the lead dev and adding some features/refactoring a sample project.
I'd be curious if anyone here is responsible for hiring devs and finds hackerrank type tests useful.
You want a personalized interview, styled exactly for you ? I would be a 'no' if i were interviewing me. You obviously can program but this makes you appear to be someone who would be difficult to work with.
However if you want to hire people to just complete tickets as fast as possible, maybe that's a valid reason to reject the candidate.
No, no, no. They have the job, you want it. That email comes across so arrogant that I would expect even the newest hiring manager to laugh and delete. Without even addressing the sour grapes attitude about coding interviews, the sheer arrogance with which you try to dictate someone else's process is a red flag in the first place. That, plus the fact that you're refusing to do what they want, is really bad for your c…
My experience doing so falls into exactly two categories:
+ Companies that get very upset (one even had the CEO email me cursing me out after I said I wasn't going to remake a twitter API client considering I had a github full of API clients including one for twitter already!)
+ Companies that go "Oh, actually yeah, that seems to make sense. Can you highlight a few repos you'd prefer to show us, or do you mind doing some whiteboarding with us?"
You never, ever, want to work for the first category. The first category of companies are the same people who usually expect you to work a lot of additional hours for free, have poor internal practices at least around work/life balance, and generally treat their engineers like code monkeys instead of people.
So, I usually push back against these tests because it's very revealing to do. Even if you end up caving, it's important to test the companies response to a bit of polite push back.
Still I wish employers would better understand the limitations of automated coding tests. Pair exercises where I can use my own environment and think out loud with an interviewer aren't so bad. Fully automated stuff like HackerRank often make simple things overly complicated because they expect answers to be written a certain way. I think those sorts of tests are only suitable for really low level screening - ensuring a sysadmin can use basic bash for example.
https://austingwalters.com/you-are-given-a-deck-containing-n...
However, HackerRank is just a screen on:
1. Are you going to be difficult
2. Do you have basic coding skills
Typically, I'd interview at least 10 people before I'd give an offer. Once we added improved screening we got that number down to 5 people before an offer (note screening wasn't HackerRank).
I think it's reasonable to screen and HackerRank is just that, it's not about complexity.
You want a personalized interview, styled exactly for you ? I would be a 'no' if i were interviewing me. You obviously can program but this makes you appear to be someone who would be difficult to work with.
While it's really just about to obey, and follow command.
People have to understand that they have to fit the soulless masses and have to be tested accordingly...