←back to thread

Please stop the coding challenges

(blackentropy.bearblog.dev)
261 points CrazyEmi | 2 comments | 15 Nov 24 15:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.462s | source
Show context
fishtoaster ◴[15 Nov 24 18:07 UTC] No.42149357[source]▶
I recently ran an interview process for a relatively senior eng role at a tiny startup. Because I believe different interview methods work better for different people, I offered everyone a choice:

1. Do a takehome test, targeted to take about 4 hours but with no actual time limit. This was a non-algorithmic project that was just a stripped-down version of what I'd spent the last month on in actual work.

2. Do an onsite pairing exercise in 2 hours. This would be a version of #1, but more of "see how far we get in 2 hours."

3. Submit a code sample of pre-existing work.

Based on the ire I've seen takehome tests get, I figured we'd get a good spread between all three, but amazingly, ~90-95% of candidates chose the takehome test. That matches my preference as a candidate as well.

I don't know if this generalizes beyond this company/role, but it was an interesting datapoint - I was very surprised to find that most people preferred it!

replies(7): >>42149441 #>>42149536 #>>42149571 #>>42149636 #>>42150136 #>>42150254 #>>42151318 #
1. milesvp ◴[15 Nov 24 18:30 UTC] No.42149536[source]▶
Interesting. I think I slightly prefer take homes, mostly because they're not as hectic. The problem ends up being, that I don't have any guarantee that the other side will spend any time on it. At least with an in person, I know that the company had to incur a significant cost so I know my time is less likely to be wasted. There's already a growing asymmetry with job searches, and this is one more trend that accelerates that. I still have a non technical friend who's annoyed with me for not completing a take home years ago, because, while the main ask was obviously trivial, there was enough slop in the directions that I could kill hours trying to decide if something was good enough to submit. On top of that it was expecting some fairly narrow set of techs, that, while not difficult to pick up, were not something I was interested in trying to learn enough about for a chance to maybe help some company that "couldn't find any technical talent".
replies(1): >>42151353 #
2. fishtoaster ◴[15 Nov 24 21:31 UTC] No.42151353[source]▶
> The problem ends up being, that I don't have any guarantee that the other side will spend any time on it.

This is a key thing for me. I consider it a moral obligation to give material feedback to anyone who does a takehome test for me - to invest at least some serious time evaluating it. Likewise, I would never give a takehome test until the candidate has at least had a phone screen with someone at the company and there's some level of investment on both sides.

On the other hand, I know a few junior devs right now who are submitting resumes and getting sent takehome tests off-the-bat. And, of course, after spending hours on those challenges, they get only form-letter rejections. I understand why companies do that - there's a glut of junior devs right now and any early-career role gets flooded with resumes that you need to somehow pare down - but I still consider it unconscionable.

I understand why you might not want to risk dealing with that.