Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsfyn55 | Hacker News Reader

Take home interviews are a great indicator of a company's hubris. "Its so awesome to work here people are going to jump at the chance to do my 3 hour homework assignment".

The problem with them is fundamental: "You will only get someone desperate enough to take your exam."

If the person is qualified they will be swimming in opportunities and will likely throw your exam directly in the trash heap. If they aren't you probably don't want them working for you. I suppose these might work if the entire industry colluded on it but then ... prisoner's dilemma.

Maybe a more useful indicator is weeding out the candidates that didn't say "no thanks." Cause really why are they so desperate for a job and why do they have all this free time? but then ... ethics.

View on HN

> The problem with them is fundamental: "You will only get someone desperate enough to take your exam."

Lots of people do poorly in whiteboard situations. As an employer, you may assert that you don't want any of them, fine. But I don't see the problem in giving people the option of using an alternative testing process.

Wait - where does it say this is an option? It isn't as far as I can tell - it is how they do it. You either invest 3-9 hours on a "project" before the interview or you don't get the interview.

This isn't "an alternative testing process" as such.

I logged into my TripleByte account and selected it as an option. The UI is still broken, but yes: it's an option. It's a separate track you can choose to be on.

If its an option and they don't exhibit any bias towards candidates that prefer a traditional interview then thats fine, but they should make it clear in the article.

Founder here. We definitely don't and the outcome of both tracks will be treated exactly the same way. As Ammon wrote it: "Anyone who passes our take-home project assessment will get exactly the same service from us as people who do the regular interviews. We'll work hard to find several YC startups they'd be a great fit for, fast track them through the hiring processes, and handle all logistics of flights/accommodations/scheduling."

zing! you got me. I only skimmed the first paragraph. Nah sounds cool. I wish you the best of luck. Let us know if it works.

The post pretty clearly says:

> To solve the problem of interview anxiety, we're adding a second track to our interview process at Triplebyte. Applicants, if they choose, will be able go through our process by completing programming projects on their own time.

> The project-based track will require a larger time commitment (and we expect lots of people to stick with the standard track for this reason).

Ya I totally agree. Especially if a candidate already has a job, and is just casually looking, there is no way they will spend the time.

Also its more than a little disingenuous on the part of the company. It communicates "my time is more valuable than yours . Go do this thing async so if you don't work out I don't have to waste resources on you." It also drives a perverse incentive on the part of the interviewing organization. The only resources you've spent is the time to send them the test if you are unmotivated or are having second thoughts you don't even have to look at the candidates work. But the candidate might spend hours on this thing.

I prefer an interview system where the company and the candidate both care. Commitment is a requirement for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com