janephilipps

I agree with your point. I'll add that for new developers and those without the traditional CS background (both of whom are my target audience for this guide) spending the extra time is a learning experience for them that can make them better developers.

Ultimately, it's not the applicant's choice what the parameters of the interview process are (I commend you for working to make it better) - given that, why shouldn't an applicant try to give themselves an edge in the process?

These are good data points. I think the amount of time you should spend often depends on where you are in your career.

I know many companies don't explicitly require tests, but for them if a candidate submits a take-home challenge without them, its an automatic rejection. Do you think that if you had included tests in that first challenge that you would have gotten an offer?

Good point about consistency, which is hard to achieve with the open-ended take-home challenges. I still feel like there is a catch 22 for new developers though - if you're competing with more experienced candidates, your best solution that you can achieve within one hour will rarely be one of the better ones, and the only way to really get better is to have real experience working on a production app. And you still have to get hired to do that, hence the catch 22. So, that's why I advocate for spending more time on these challenges up front, especially for people first making the switch, because they can be used as a learning opportunity. So many companies don't have the time or just don't want to invest the time to train newer developers, which automatically eliminates hiring someone straight out of a bootcamp. Maybe someone with a CS degree and no work experience would have the same problem though.

I like what you said about the importance of companies administering their own challenges as well. I've encountered some like that and they do tend to be a better reflection of the types of challenges and problems the company is facing.

Love the idea of investing in the local community. Training and mentorship is so important, and so many companies sacrifice it for other things.

Wow, so sorry to hear this! This seems to test nothing other than what your interpretation of "clever" is. I've definitely learned that it never hurts to ask questions in these situations.

This is really cool, thanks for sharing! I don't necessarily disagree with your point, though I do think an unrealistic time limit is even worse than no time limit. I also emphasize the importance of not taking on a challenge that is outside the scope of your ability here: https://www.fullstackinterviewing.com/2018/02/02/the-ultimat...

What are your thoughts on timed coding problems like Codility or Hackerrank?

This seems like a good happy medium type of take-home challenge. Out of curiosity, how many applicants have you had?

Part of what I like about take-home challenges is that you can do them on your own time without anyone watching over your shoulder. Because in-person technical interviews tend to last for such a long time, they can be incredibly draining. The candidate's experience really depends on the interviewer's ability as well.

For a well established developer, this may be true, but for newer developers, they often have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove their skills first, especially if they come from a non-traditional background and do not have a CS degree.

Do you think this issue is less pronounced with the move toward companies providing compensation guidelines up front?

As an experienced programmer, what does your ideal interview process look like? Do you think your opinion holds true for junior developers as well?

This is a really cool idea - because working with code written by other people is usually a large part of any job, this type of assignment could also test for that. For newer devs, I've seen anything from simple Tic Tac Toe to being given a starter app with a general set of requirements to fulfill.

Sure - as someone who transitioned into development from another industry, I could only rely on my past experience for transferrable skills, and not my actual technical skills. While Github is great, my Github is not always an accurate reflection of where I am technically as I continue learning.

I agree that time suggestions are usually way off, which can be a positive and a negative. On one hand, you can spend a ton of time to go above and beyond, while on the other hand, you may have other priorities. I think if you're really excited about a job or company, you can show that by putting a lot of effort in.

Examples like this are why I think take-home challenges are a better way to assess a candidate's coding skills vs. their problem solving skills/how they think.

This is tough - I've had similar experiences. I think the main issue here is that the company didn't give you any feedback, so it's hard to know what happened. I've submitted a take-home challenge, but had hiring needs change in the time it took me to complete it, so the company passed. Though I think there are a ton of things you can do to make your self stand out as a candidate with a take-home challenge vs. a whiteboarding interview, they are not for everyone.

Thanks! I definitely understand that many people are opposed to take-home challenges because they can be very time consuming. For me, I use them as a learning opportunity, so even though they are not necessarily going to be used or maintained in the future, they can be a great way to practice or get better at a specific language or tech stack.