Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

trytapioca.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 190 posts

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#51

Post by morelisp »

alexyang21 wrote: post #2

Studies [1] show that a work sample test is the best predictor of candidate performance on the job, which is why many software engineering teams use take-home tests as one step in their hiring process. But designing an effective test is difficult and time-consuming. For example, candidates are reluctant to complete tests that are too long or not engaging enough. But make them too short and teams won’t get the signal…

One thing I wish I could see but probably isn't compilable is how much an impact the test has on the final decision or what stage it's at.

Lots of the comments are pointing out a 2-4h takehome is a poor value prop from the candidate's side compared to a 1h leetcode which transfers better across companies. (I'd agree with this.) But a 1h leetcode is usually just a first hurdle to what's often another 1-3 rounds, while for me the point of the 2-4h takehome is that it's the only thing. You do it, we grade/talk about, we can arrange a more formal team meeting if you want but that's the whole process.

Am I alone in wanting shorter interviews but longer tests?

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#52

Post by jakearmitage »

lelandfe wrote: post #14

As there are no tests rated 1 star, I wonder if the scoring is too lax. I've taken some of these – shocked that Algolia's made it to a 3 star. Look at how much work this is: https://github.com/algolia/solutions-hiring-assignment

That's an absurd amount of work to do for free. Plus, it is useless: You won't learn anything new, it is going to impact no one, and it is going to sit stale at the inbox of 2 senior developers for 2 weeks until it is seen, as a chore.

This vicious cycle of wasting time must stop.

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#53

Post by spmurrayzzz »

twawaaay wrote: post #5

As an interviewer, I believe take home tasks are unfair and also poor return on investment. Take home tasks incentivise candidates to burn as much time as possible on the task. Consequently, they are a test of who is willing to put a week of work even when the instructions say it should not take more than 3 hours to complete. I prefer pair programming with the candidate on the premise that if I ask you to spend 2 hou…

If the take home assessment is scoped to a small amount of time (1-2 hours is small IMO) with the expectation that the seniority level you're selecting for could complete it in less than that time, I don't see any problem as long as you don't put arbitrarily constrained time limits on how long you are willing wait for the submission.

I agree with you that if the candidate is going to spend the time to do the exercise, the hiring manager should be spending an equal amount of time as well in the process. But that effort can come from the detailed review of the code, the time commitment of which should be in the service of being able to have a meaningful conversation about the candidate's submission in later rounds (which is useful for your last point about discovering what its like to actually work with the candidate).

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#54

Post by ysavir »

andreyk wrote: post #34
zaphar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-Point. If the assignment is properly sized: no more than an hour. Then the candidate doing it at home using their system and their tools gives you a more accurate picture of their actual capabilities than a whiteboard or doing it on your hardware in an unfamiliar setting with a stranger giving every appearance of critiquing your work. This is an interview after all. The power balance whether intended or not i…

I like this concept - have a one time download link, and a timer to submit solution within an hour or two. Seems like a good balance of fair and realistic (assuming you can't Google for solutions and all).

What if I have a lot going on and need to divide my time? I understand why you're choosing to do this, but ultimately it's assuming a lot on part of the interviewee, and doesn't offer any flexibility.

If you gave me such a code challenge, I'd probably take it as a sign that company culture is to put employees under pressure and I would immediately decline.

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#55

Post by alfalfasprout »

not_the_fda wrote: post #26

Why would I do any of these? They are a huge time sink and I have plenty of job opportunities without jump through these hoops.

Because they weed out people that just do a bunch of leetcode from people that actually know how to write quality software.

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#56

Post by ghaff »

NeverFade wrote: post #47
glenjamin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I set a take-home test designed to take two hours, and then very clearly tell the candidate to take two hours, and then they clearly spent way longer than that, then I will consider that a signal that they don’t follow instructions well and don’t value their time appropriately.

How do you know they clearly took over two hours? We love talking about productivity here. You're telling me employers will systematically fail the candidates who performed most productively in their process, because of a speculation they took too much time?

And a reasonable response in any case is "Yah, I know you said that but I don't like to do sloppy work and there were clearly a number of different edge cases that needed to be handled for this to work reliably."

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#57

Post by morelisp »

irf1 wrote: post #41

Give candidates real work & pay them for their time. https://blog.algora.io/post/2022-04-pay-when-hiring-part-2/

He calls it a "Ride Along": top candidates spend a day of coding with his team and receive $500.

How do you figure out if they're top candidates?

First we did screening & technical interviews to arrive at our 5-10 most promising candidates

Right, so we're back at square one doing "technical interviews" again.

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#58

Post by LewisJEllis »

twawaaay wrote: post #5

As an interviewer, I believe take home tasks are unfair and also poor return on investment. Take home tasks incentivise candidates to burn as much time as possible on the task. Consequently, they are a test of who is willing to put a week of work even when the instructions say it should not take more than 3 hours to complete. I prefer pair programming with the candidate on the premise that if I ask you to spend 2 hou…

Have you ever considered that solutions to your perceived problem might exist?

I’ve done multiple different takehomes with some kind of time limit in place to avoid that sort of thing. Tools have this built in.

Also, there are definitely candidates who would prefer a takehome. If you’re worried that a takehome might be unfair, you can offer folks a choice to either do the exercise on their own async, or to do it live pairing with you. You might be surprised by how many will choose the former.

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#59

Post by jakearmitage »

twawaaay wrote: post #5

As an interviewer, I believe take home tasks are unfair and also poor return on investment. Take home tasks incentivise candidates to burn as much time as possible on the task. Consequently, they are a test of who is willing to put a week of work even when the instructions say it should not take more than 3 hours to complete. I prefer pair programming with the candidate on the premise that if I ask you to spend 2 hou…

Do you think that spending 2 hours of someones time, under the scrutiny of a stranger and already under the stress of looking for a new job, is fair?

Has anyone ever asked you to code for them, instead? So they could learn about you and how you deal with problems? Have they asked how you deal with situations under stress? Or maybe they never did so because they were never comfortable enough to do so, since they were in the spotlight?

Re: We compiled a library of realistic engineering take-home tests and ranked them

#60

Post by ghaff »

stephenhogsten wrote: post #24
smegsicle wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and however it was enforced, it would increase the stress a great deal

True. More stress than an untimed take-home, but I would think less stress than a normal interview (for most engineers, at least).

And the reality is that a lot of/most people interviewing in those type of situations arre very well familiar with time-boxed exams at school. (And even with take homes the reality of final exams as I recall is that you mostly didn't have the hours in the day to spend an outsized amount of time on one course.)
Post reply on HN