> 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.
> 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).
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."
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.