You seem to have rapidly skipped over the exact thing no-one complains about -- a take-home piece of work paid at a reasonable rate. You just claimed people would complain.
I've done exactly this, and everyone seemed happy.
I've done exactly this, and everyone seemed happy.
It took up a lot of my week, though, and I know it would be tricky to be interviewing at multiple places at the same time like that. Others have mentioned portfolios, which is an idea I think makes a whole lot of sense.
I've seen multiple comments in past HN threads of programmers complaining about any after-hours coding homework (even if paid) because "they have kids and don't have time or energy for that".
Probably the only suggested interview method that gets the fewest complaints from candidates is the "let's have a casual chat and just shoot the breeze about past programming projects". The problem is that you get complaints from the hiring managers that it's too easy to bullshit and is the weakest signal to determine competency.
I agree with gp (jerf). Ultimately, candidates just want to be hired without demonstrating skill. E.g. the college diploma should be enough. Or the resume should be enough. Or just low-stakes conversation should be enough. But the hiring managers don't want to do that.
Hiring managers need to actually spend time constructing a process that has questions (and if needed, exercises) that specifically determine whether a candidate has the specific skills needed for the job at hand. But that is actually fairly hard to do right, and it's easy to just grab some semi-random "take home exercise" and hand it off and call it a proper assessment. A proper technical interview will have increasingly specific questions that will both assess skill level and a person's ability to communicate with the team. If there is an exercise, it should reflect the specific skills the person will be expected to use in the job at hand. And bonus points for flexibly adjusting between in-person or take-home depending on the interviewee's strengths and wishes in that regard.
The problem is you're using your own perspective of "reasonable middle ground" and thinking that other candidates would agree with you. Many would not.
Here's an example of "you shouldn't have to go through that crap when your resume clearly states you are capable." : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11596553
So regardless of any "job-specific" skills assessment you come up with, you will still get complaints from many because they feel their resume of experience, (or github portfolio, or college degree, etc) -- should already prove that they know how to code. This is not an uncommon sentiment! E.g. "Making me demonstrate my coding skill is an insult when you could just look at my resume credentials. Does a pharmacist show how they dispense pills to get hired?!?"
Or variations on your "reasonable skills assessment" with creative exercises such as "here's an existing bug ticket for a code defect; show us how you debug it" ... still has some complaints of "demonstrating my coding skill is unfair because I get nervous in interview situations because there's an imbalanced power dynamic between interviewer and interviewee."
Ok, instead of interview because you get nervous under pressure, here's some coding homework. Of which this "reasonable" alternative has pushback from some comments in this subthread.
Various threads about "hiring is broken" is evidence of the ever elusive "reasonable middle ground" that we're chasing after.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for this argument. If they have time to take half a day to go to an interview, then it doesn't seem like it should be much different to take half a day to work on an interviewing problem.
But a lot of companies use the multi-hour coding homework as a preliminary filter before asking the candidate to take the "next step" to the half-day onsite interview.
The coding homework is asymmetric work because the company doesn't have to expend their existing employees time on prospective candidates. In fact, a lot of companies let recruiters coordinate the coding homework so their existing employees spend the least amount of time on it.
The onsite interview is more symmetric effort because both the interviewer and the candidate have to expend time together. There's a bit more commitment on the part of the company doing the hiring.
I'm not complaining. Just stating how the different perspectives play out.
if i interview at 10 companies suddenly a lot of vacation time is gone.
so i am not going to take time off until i am reasonably certain that i want this job and can get it if i pass.
likewise i'll be willing to take time off for a take home assignment only when that is the last test i need to pass.
if companies want the assignment before they'll even look at my CV, then that's to much.
steps should be:
look at the CV to see if the candidate is basically quslified.
talk to the candidate to get to know them, answer any questions, agree on salary and benefits.
once that is all sorted, bring on the coding test.
Most contracts I’ve had will actually state “without manager approval” but that’s just as bad in many instances.
[later] Actually this became illegal in Illinois at the beginning of this year, though the protections don’t extend to clients or competitors.
It's unenforceable, according to everyone I've interacted with in the state :)
"The solution is this, but I'm SURE people wouldn't like it, so you all are complaining too much"
What was the rate you chose?