> I've personally seen no correlation between people who can solve problems and program when watched by another person versus people who can solve problems and program when left alone with a real problem, and ample of time to noodle on and resolve it on their own.
At most of my companies, we tried moving exclusively to take-home interview problems for this reason. Short problems that could be solved in 2-4 hours of time, as benchmarked against current employees during daytime hours.
Inevitably, some candidates hated this so vocally that they'd ghost us, or some times even take to social media to lambaste us for trying to take away from their free time. Or we had people refusing to do the toy problem (not real work, same test for all candidates) unless we paid them hundreds of dollars to compensate their time.
It didn't matter how much we tried to explain that the entire purpose of the take-home problem was to grant flexibility to the candidate. A large number of candidates vocally hated any interview technique that didn't involve company employees giving 1:1 interview time to them.
We just filtered those candidates out of the pipeline, but I walked away with a clear understanding that interview practices will never make everyone happy.
- only after I had a face to face (can be on skype, but not on phone) interview with a hiring manager/engineer, so I know I really want to work for that company. Job ads usually not very useful determinating that (Interview should work both ways.)
- Not used as a prescreening. It should prove that I really know what I'm talking about. Otherwise, maybe I'm just wasting my time (See above)
- No more than 2-4 hour (we agree on that)
- We review my code. It's good for both of us. I get feedback, the Interview gets more inside why I did what and if I really write the code. (Optional, but prefered)
"interview practices will never make everyone happy."
This is true, but it's not a problem. The problem would be everybody using the same interviewing practices.
Me, I think complaints about spending a few hours on an assignment are ridiculous. All the alternatives are much, much more objectionable to me. The main fallback I have is a contract or temp position, which means my "interview assignment" takes months.
If in typical work settings people work in groups to solve work problems, then in typical interview setting interviewer should also work in group with interviewee in order to have relevant estimate of interviewee performance?
Such collaborative interview setup also addresses interviewee concern that interviewer may not value interviewee time.
> Or we had people refusing to do the toy problem (not real work, same test for all candidates) unless we paid them hundreds of dollars to compensate their time.
It's otherwise billable time, don't see why you'd have a hard time respecting that from a candidate.
> "It's otherwise billable time, don't see why you'd have a hard time respecting that from a candidate."
Sure, as long as the business gets to deduct the cost of the interviewers' time from that. Not gonna work out in favor of the candidate but respect is a two-way street.
After all, once the candidate (or a candidate, anyway) joins the team, it's their billable time being spent reviewing and interviewing other candidates too.
At most of my companies, we tried moving exclusively to take-home interview problems for this reason. Short problems that could be solved in 2-4 hours of time, as benchmarked against current employees during daytime hours.
Inevitably, some candidates hated this so vocally that they'd ghost us, or some times even take to social media to lambaste us for trying to take away from their free time. Or we had people refusing to do the toy problem (not real work, same test for all candidates) unless we paid them hundreds of dollars to compensate their time.
It didn't matter how much we tried to explain that the entire purpose of the take-home problem was to grant flexibility to the candidate. A large number of candidates vocally hated any interview technique that didn't involve company employees giving 1:1 interview time to them.
We just filtered those candidates out of the pipeline, but I walked away with a clear understanding that interview practices will never make everyone happy.