After that he said "Okay, I know you know enough to handle the job, now I'm curious how much you really know. " (This is key, I feel. He specified I wasn't going to get dinged for not knowing the answers, so I didn't feel the pressure in the questions he asked afterwards, when I usually feel intense pressure, as I know I've been passed over for getting a single question wrong in multiple interviews in the past.) He then asked me some pretty deep questions about low level memory and other things, and if I said I didn't know he turned into teacher mode and taught me the concept.
I actually walked out of that interview having learned something new and useful. I then got to chat with the President very casually, and I received a job offer a few days later.
The interviewer new his stuff, too. He'd been programming arcade games in assembly for decades. His games have sold millions of dollars, and two of the series still get made today.
Ever since, I figured if a freaking legend could be satisfied after reviewing some code and a code sample, the crap I've had to endure everywhere else is completely and totally unnecessary, and it's just frustrated me to no end.
After several questions that he was sure I knew the regular stuffs and was qualified for the job, he said he was going to ask some really hard questions to see how much I really knew and what was my thought process. The questions had no simple answers. Each of them required knowledge and experiences from a few technical fields. I didn't know much then. He guided me how to solve the problems, discussed the pros and cons of each approach. Then he told me how they did it, how other products in the same category did it, etc.
The half-hour interview was prolonged to one and a half. At the end, he said, "You have a very intuition on what are the right directions to go when facing unknown complex issues", and gave me an offer. It is my best interview experience. (I didn't join the start-up due to other reasons.)
The technologies have been advanced in a blazing fast speed i the last 10 plus years. Technical interviews, on the contrary, regress in a similar speed.
One company I interviewed with gave me a program that had to be written in Scala, with the full knowledge that I would have to learn Scala to do it. Please.
I actually really like homework assignment approach when done correctly, both as an interviewer and as an interviewee (though seanmcdirmid's suggestion of prep material, rather than a homework assignment, is quite sound), but this is a separate issue, independent of how skills are assessed.
It's really about the company/team having a preconceived notion of what skills they are looking for vs. looking to see if a candidate has a distinctive skillset that could help round-out the team. How do you, as the candidate, market yourself and the things you are good at?
Obviously, the resume is a good place to do such marketing (and I'm sure you already are) so if teams are turning down applications based on the homework without looking at the other skills the candidate has to offer, then that might be an issue.
"The IT industry is committed to increasing the number of women engineers. But if they're too busy caring for their children to spend six hours doing our silly test, that's their fault for being women. We are forced to hire 20-something white males who have nothing better to do with their time."
For her at least, this worked out better for her. She does design, which is even more difficult to evaluate in 30 minute time slots.
Not that I’m arguing this is the way to go, I was just wondering if interviewers could give some hints on what they would cover I the interview, so we could prep like studying for a test.
I hope your not impugning the motives of those who issue take-home assignments. Existing practices for hiring are objectively bad at selecting qualified candidates, and most people are just trying to do better. There is some evidence that take-home assignments are an improvement above the norm.
Also, consider that such assignments can serve as a "blind-audition" and can help eliminate bias from the interviewing process. And there are lots of ways in which loading everything into the interview unfairly penalizes certain types of otherwise qualified candidates. What's left, referrals? That's definitely biased, even if it also tends to have a lower false positive rate.
An easy switch would be to convert take homes to onsite work. One of the more recent interviews I had consisted of putting me in a room with some data and a stub of code and asked me to fill in the stub over a few hours. Every so often, they’d come by and ask if there were any problems. (More frequently at first, and then later less frequently.)
It’s basically the same, but it’s timeboxed and well defined with enough back and forth, to not feel like they’re just throwing a problem over the wall to you.
They are relevant enough that the prior poster felt the need to smear them.
> if the effect is the same
The claimed effect is, at this point, purely hypothetical and indeed runs contrary to my experience.
> An easy switch would be to convert take homes to onsite work.
Generally speaking, an onsite task like you describe seems like a reasonable choice for a company to make. However, this strikes me as worse for the affected groups that reaperducer was concerned about:
- It requires scheduling an even larger fixed block of time outside one's normal job/life responsibilities. A take-home assignment at least allows for flexibility for when you work on it. It strikes me that time-poor candidates would appreciate the flexibility.
- It would no longer be a "blind audition". When I've reviewed take-home assignments, I don't know anything about the candidate except that the code. It strikes me as a good way to resist unconscious bias from seeping in.
The the on-site solution remains a blind audition if the people doing the evaluation are not the people administering the test. This is exactly the case for a take home assignment, only now it is timeboxed and with access relatively timely help if needed.
The purpose of the blind audition is not to hide the identity of person being interviewed, as much as it is to enforce an objective standard and remove bias. If the rubric is, “Accept all that got automatic evaluation score of at least X”, then that achieves a similar goal.
As far as time-poor people, never underestimate the desire of having a clearly defined block of time. Of course, onsite or not can always be optional as well.
Pointing out (potential) unintended consequences is fine, even welcome.
Putting sexist remarks in the mouths of others is a smear, even if it is done merely flippantly.
> While it is true that the effect is merely claimed, as I know of no relevant study, your anecdote equally meaningless.
Anecdote is more meaningful than mere speculation. Even without statistically valid data, examples that are contrary to our expectations can bring to light factors that we had not previously considered.
> The the on-site solution remains a blind audition if the people doing the evaluation are not the people administering the test...The purpose of the blind audition is not to hide the identity of person being interviewed, as much as it is to enforce an objective standard and remove bias. If the rubric is, “Accept all that got automatic evaluation score of at least X”, then that achieves a similar goal.
A fair point.
> This is exactly the case for a take home assignment, only now it is timeboxed and with access relatively timely help if needed.
The point about timely help is definitely a point in favor of on-site work tests. But working in a timebox can also be stressful. A take-home assignment without artificial deadlines (i.e. don't schedule any interviews until after the assignment was received and approved) can eliminate that stress.
> As far as time-poor people, never underestimate the desire of having a clearly defined block of time. Of course, onsite or not can always be optional as well.
I think this hits on an important point, and one that I think would benefit from research and expertise I don't have. I'd hazard a guess that it depends upon why one is time poor.
If the candidate is intelligent and capable, but somewhat disorderly, then they would probably benefit from a structured, on-site task.
If the candidate is more organized but simply has a difficult and rigid schedule (which is actually something I would expect true, for example, of a working mother) then a take-home assignment might be better.
I don't know that either one is superior in all cases. Honestly, I think the best option would be to give the candidate a choice.
You will never be unbiased in a hiring process, because the bar you set is not universal, and always be biased in some way. Being "as blind as possible" isn't the right metric, and we shouldn't hire based on it.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
I wrote a thing about it and I got someone who responded to me with a rather scathing rebuttal. I don't know, it's very conflicting.
Post in case you're interested: https://dev.to/spirodonfl/should-i-accept-coding-challenges-...
Edit: better wording