back

by padolsey·10y ago·view on hn ↗
This methodology may correctly filter the candidates the author is seeking, but if this made up the bulk of any interview I attended, it would probably turn me off the role.

FWIW, when I attend an interview, as either party, I want to have a discussion, a bit of back-and-forth, and crucially to determine if it's likely we'd be able to get on, day to day. Coding competency is not the only important thing. And anyway, it can easily be established via a bit of white-boarding, conversation, and preparatory reviews of any existing work they have online. If you are in doubt, then maybe pair on a fun little algorithm,... something that's not solved, and not dull. Something original would be best.

Being given a pre-packaged task to complete feels very procedural and bland...

1 comments
> Being given a pre-packaged task to complete feels very procedural and bland...

This part is important:

> Having a consistent test also allows me to compare candidates easily and without bias.

Also, I think most people would care more about the content of the exercise, rather than whether it is prepackaged or not.

I get that. I just would rather not feel like a monkey being prodded whenever I attend an interview. An interview being repeatable (for comparative purposes) brings no value to the candidate.
It does if the candidate is something that the interviewer might be biased against (race, gender, opinions on Star Wars). Avoiding bias in interviews helps everyone except those who rely on irrelevant qualities to get jobs.
Maybe, but I feel that the answer to such biases is to introspect and understand your potential prejudgements, and then not let them specifically sway you. Anyway, the accepted alternative, an entirely meritocratic process, is fraught with issues too, as the playing field is inegalitarian to begin with -- so those candidates who might be the victims of unfair biases could already be at a disadvantage since they might not have received the privileges that preempt meritocratic success. It is assumed that relying totally on a candidate's coding ability somehow avoids the issue of bias and works to mend our diversity issues in this sector, but it actually merely plays into the entrenched state of things. I don't have a solution, but this entire problem-set is certainly deserving of more nuanced thought.
> This part is important: > Having a consistent test also allows me to compare candidates easily and without bias.

No, it isn't. The person who performs best on the test is often not the person who will perform the best on the job.

Tests like these should always be pass/fail.