Now, if you were to tell me that nobody ever looked at the test after you sent it in, then it becomes disrespectful. I had several companies do that to me a few months ago.
Not that it matters much. I don't think code tests will stick around. It's too time consuming for the hiring managers.
By requiring these tasks you're implicitly screening not only people who can't code but also people who don't have three hours to spend on applying to your company. If all you want is 20-somethings with no other responsibilities then continue as you are, but if you'd like to see a bit of diversity then you're going to have to compromise.
You could simply get rid of the take home test; that will shift the burden to the resume and cover letter, to the advantage of humanities graduates like me.
You could mandate a full day on-site, which will bias against people from out of town who want to relocate and people in delicate situations at their current employer.
For the time poor candidate, there is always the whiteboard exercise... Whose biases we are gathered here to moan about in the first place.
I always feel in these threads that people think hiring is 'broken' and it can be 'fixed' with the proper application of 'one weird trick'. But then all the comments actually have contradictory complaints. So obviously it can't.
What I am asking is that companies don't ask me to invest hours of time before they decide if they're even interested in talking to me. At the very least I want to have had a phone interview and the chance to assess whether I'm even interested in working for you. That's particularly relevant when looking for remote friendly employers, I've had several calls in recent days from recruiters responding to me saying I'm looking for remote work which I stopped on finding out what they meant was "at least three months fulltime on site, and then maybe we'll talk about some remote work".
Home test is totally fine after a phone call or a two. However, they are not fine at all just after submitting an application and no real contact.
I feel like this is the crux of it as well. I am not against projects or tests to show I am technically qualified. But this should be after talking to some potential team mates to see if there is even a fit, personally, work culture-wise, technical interest or any number of factors that you could glean by speaking to potential colleagues for 20 or 30 minutes.
I used to invite people for an interview without any prior testing, but it was generally such a big waste of time for both me and applicant. What's more, quite often I can see from CV that someone is underqualified, but I do not want to reject them immediately without giving them a chance, so I send them a homework. Finally, you would be surprise how often even people with good CVs turn out to be quite bad.
I don't mind long coding exercises, it's what I do all day anyway. Better than watching yet another episode of NCIS or what have you :)
[1] https://github.com/mdpopescu/public/tree/master/SocialNetwor...
- How is this any different than spending an unreasonable amount of time studying balancing binary trees and similar trivial whiteboarding problems?
I'm of the opinion that studying all these variations of the algorithm problems is a bigger time-sink and waste of time than getting into the habit of problem solving a take-home project.
Except in practice it seems that its not a "little code" its a 4 hour project that is usually closer to a 6 or 8 hour project in reality.
So by your reasoning CVs are not meaningful at all. Should we get rid of them? Why stop there though, should we not even discuss past projects we have worked on in interviews since those are also likely exaggerations and possibly outright lies?