Ask HN: How is it fair that companies ask candidates to spend hours on a task? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How is it fair that companies ask candidates to spend hours on a task?

5 pointslukevella16 comments

Almost every job opportunity has a technical task attached to it, many of which require a significant amount of time to complete and some of which are open ended in such a way that they encourage candidates to spend as much time as possible to get an edge over the competition.

Companies say that they enjoy seeing candidates that have open source contributions, but what is the point if they end up being judged solely on their work on the task they are being asked to do for free?

It seems so wrong to me to ask people to spend so much of their time doing this work for what is at best a chance at a job offer.

Why is this acceptable?

To clarify, I am not completely against giving out tasks but asking people to spend 4+ hours is too much.

View on HN

I strongly agree. I view it as highly disrespectful, especially since I have more than enough open source work out on GitHub.

I also do not wish to burden candidates with that when I interview them. I believe I am a good judge of character, and also a good judge of ability, so I haven't felt the need to offer a project after a phone screen or in-person. I do not even plan out the questions I ask except for having a loose set of criteria I look for when I interview a candidate. It is much easier if the conversation is fluid, as if between peers. That does not mean I won't ask difficult questions - sometimes I do, but I ask them depending on how the conversation goes and what the developer comes off as to me. My questions are meant to gauge the candidate's skill level, and whether there is a good fit for the company and candidate. I don't need to give the a super hard brainteaser - that only serves to filter for the exceptional, and isn't an efficient use of time. I don't need to give FizzBuzz - if I am that suspicious of a candidate, I will cut the interview short, since within the first 5-10 minutes, I already have a general hypothesis formed that I am testing for.

I like to open up interviews with asking about the candidate to explain his/her background. I will have read the resume beforehand, or read it while the person is giving the overview, to see if the person misrepresented anything on the resume or about his/her background. I ask about details about some recent experiences, and if it is the technology that my company uses, I ask for the candidate's views on the technology, including positives and negatives. I shift over to questions about beliefs on how the candidate approaches certain situations, or shift to the technical questions. I don't require exactness in answers, but if a candidate has an exact correct answer, it's a good sign. Similarly if I ask a trickier question and the candidate figures out how to answer it optimally quickly, it's a huge positive - you can't fake that sort of cognitive reaction.

Lastly, I save some time for the candidate to ask questions - even this is a part of my evaluation process, because more senior candidates know what type of questions to ask based on what they have seen in the industry.

For me, this has been enough for me to evaluate a candidate properly. Anything like a project is excessive and unnecessary.

If you've gotten to know the company somewhat (several interviews that went well), give them a counteroffer:

"I know how important it is to test my skills before hiring me, so I'd like to propose an even more in-depth assessment: I'll work for you as a contractor for two weeks. If your team likes my work, you can hire me as an employee."

I don't know if it would work, but if you really can't spare the time to do assessments, it's worth a shot.

I'd be much happier with that if companies were open to it. The only thing is that this is one of the cases where it might hurt to ask. So it's a risky approach.

If asking the company to respect the value of your time is going to cost you the opportunity of working for said company than I wouldn't consider it a big loss. Chances are if they don't respect the value of your time now they won't later either, pushing you to work long hours, weekend hours, guilting you away from taking vacation days, and so on.

I'd suggest that fairness is irrelevant. Businesses will demand as much as they can. If great candidates stop applying to them because of their ridiculous demands, they will either have to reduce their demands or hire only mediocre candidates. If great candidates keep applying, they will continue to be jerks.

This is simply a result of the way economics works. Voting with your feet is the best way to stop it.

Very true. Maybe fairness isn't the right word. How about ethical?

I had a phone interview recently, the first stage in the interview process. They explained they used Hacker Rank, so I challenged them and asked them if they found it was a good way to hire candidates, as its not likely to be like the day work. (Didn't change anything).

In the end I couldn't be bothered filling it in.

I would say there was a 50/50% chance I would have done it successfully. Sure I could study up and practice to make sure I passed, but I have been developer for 12 years. I don't need to fart about with algorithm trivia when the stuff I build is at a higher level for a different market.

I'll spend that time on my side project. At least I can use that again when the next company asks to see an example of my work.

To give you a bit of perspective: in other industries, it's quite common that Assessment Center sessions last around 6-8 hours (however, there are breaks and lunch included) and it's not uncommon to see even 2-day assessments.

Is it fair? I'd say yes, if following 2 conditions are met: 1. The method (AC/task/exercise) is well designed to actually test the candidate's skills and his/her performance is properly observed, measured, analyzed and assessed. It's fair for the candidate, because the hiring decision is adequate. 2. After all this effort the candidate receives both a "thank you" and short feedback about his/her performance.

Unfortunately these conditions aren't met quite often and that's not fair.

I don't agree that using other industries as examples is a good defense. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right.

Obviously the more work a person puts into a task, the better you can assess their ability. But when does a task become excessive. It seems that the limit is being stretched thin.

Which industries do this? A day or more of tests seems excessive to simply determine skill for a given job. The candidates that go through it must be pretty desperate.

As a candidate, I tend to ask that one of two conditions be met for these kind of projects:

Either:

1. It's open-source and I can show it/share it as I see fit in the future

2. They pay me for my time.

I prefer #1 actually, and most companies will be okay with the open-source thing, but will usually ask that you not share it publicly (on a github or anything), so that other candidates can't find it. I like this option because it gives me ammo the next time I'm asked to do a coding challenge ("Okay sure I'll do it, but did I mention I'm already in talks with a few other companies and have already finished their coding challenges? Here take a look! If these don't show you what you need to know, I'll take your test too."

I've been on both sides of this and if the task takes any more than 2 hours. I offer an hourly rate that is reasonable and a well defined mini project that would showcase the skills required for the job. This way no matter the outcome hired or not the person does not feel unfairly treated and is always offered feedback. I also ask them what type of work they love to do and note that for a future project/hire that I may need in the future.

Guess that will save time later if the candidate doesnt fit the role.

Instead keep a open project expectation, expected time to complete and get that agreed.

The best companies use short assessments to make sure that the long one will likely be successful.

I'd counter-offer with a wage appropriate for the hour for those "jobs".

I'd be curious to hear if anyone has ever done this

Reply on news.ycombinator.com