Companies shouldn't give candidates homework assignments(gayle.com)
gayle.com
Companies shouldn't give candidates homework assignments
http://www.gayle.com/blog/2013/09/18/companies-who-give-candidates-homework-assignments-knock-it-off
178 comments
The article is clear: homework is the best approach from the perspective of company time. That this practice is widespread should be interpreted as a lopsided labor market with a glut of supply (workers) and limited demand (companies).
The insight regarding supply and demand in the job market did occur to me, but I still think companies have an ethical responsibility to respect applicants' time and effort. In particular, time should be taken for a thorough and objective review of every single "homework assignment" that is given out, and the company should attach an appropriate weight to it as a hiring signal.
e.g. If my thousand lines of code are being weighed objectively and fairly against a thousand other applicants' code, so be it. If they get bored of reading and pick one near the top that isn't terrible, that's bullshit. And if mine is the top entry, I'd better not get passed over because someone didn't like the color of my tie.
e.g. If my thousand lines of code are being weighed objectively and fairly against a thousand other applicants' code, so be it. If they get bored of reading and pick one near the top that isn't terrible, that's bullshit. And if mine is the top entry, I'd better not get passed over because someone didn't like the color of my tie.
I'd argue that any company who'd judge me based on the colour of my tie, or (hypothetically) the Pride entry wristband I forgot to take off -- is probably not one I'd want to work at long-term.
(Experience bears this out, though I didn't find out until much later into my tenure)
I think of jobs more in terms of relationships -- if we don't mesh, if we don't get on, then neither party will get value from the relationship and it's better to find out sooner than later.
(Experience bears this out, though I didn't find out until much later into my tenure)
I think of jobs more in terms of relationships -- if we don't mesh, if we don't get on, then neither party will get value from the relationship and it's better to find out sooner than later.
Ya I agree, I was all ready to blast it but then realized it had a couple good pointers in the case that you are gonna offer homework.
I do disagree with the premise though. As someone who's worked in the tech field for 15+ years and has been on plenty of interviews, I for one would much rather do a short homework assignment than have to stand in front of a few people and white board shit in real-time.
Here are reasons why it's a solid idea:
1. Way more closely simulates a real work environment. I've never had a job where I get the assignment moments before I have to code it, use a whiteboard to write code, am severely time-boxed and have a group of people watch me work.
2. More inclusive. Your work stands out more when someone isn't making judgements based on looks, age, gender, etc.
3. If you complain about having to spend a couple hours outside the interview on work, maybe you don't really want the job that bad enough. People will spend weeks on an unpaid open-source project but then complain about 2 hours for something that might get them a great job.
Having said that, I agree with you also that the interview can be a great time to go over the homework and ask questions, talk about why a particular strategy was chosen, etc.
I would personally love to see more interviews go away from whiteboards and more towards homework.
I do disagree with the premise though. As someone who's worked in the tech field for 15+ years and has been on plenty of interviews, I for one would much rather do a short homework assignment than have to stand in front of a few people and white board shit in real-time.
Here are reasons why it's a solid idea:
1. Way more closely simulates a real work environment. I've never had a job where I get the assignment moments before I have to code it, use a whiteboard to write code, am severely time-boxed and have a group of people watch me work.
2. More inclusive. Your work stands out more when someone isn't making judgements based on looks, age, gender, etc.
3. If you complain about having to spend a couple hours outside the interview on work, maybe you don't really want the job that bad enough. People will spend weeks on an unpaid open-source project but then complain about 2 hours for something that might get them a great job.
Having said that, I agree with you also that the interview can be a great time to go over the homework and ask questions, talk about why a particular strategy was chosen, etc.
I would personally love to see more interviews go away from whiteboards and more towards homework.
Unfortunately the homework project is usually followed by an in-person whiteboard hazing, which nullifies those benefits. I recently interviewed with a well known tech mini-giant who admitted that my homework assignment was among the best they’ve received, but still flunked me based on the in-person slugfest so YMMV.
I really think that all technical interview questions should be "open-book". Whether that's doing a homework assignment or simply telling the candidate what technical issues to study up on for the whiteboard.
For the brief stint that I did interviewing, I had candidates whiteboard after doing a homework assignment, but all I had them do was step through the very algorithm they had implemented in the homework using a very simple input dataset. None of them had any issues with the whiteboard, even those who were clearly very nervous/anxious.
Building software is hard enough as it is. I doubt making the coding tasks open book is probably not going to allow in many (if any) unqualified candidates.
For the brief stint that I did interviewing, I had candidates whiteboard after doing a homework assignment, but all I had them do was step through the very algorithm they had implemented in the homework using a very simple input dataset. None of them had any issues with the whiteboard, even those who were clearly very nervous/anxious.
Building software is hard enough as it is. I doubt making the coding tasks open book is probably not going to allow in many (if any) unqualified candidates.
Why not go all the way and make it “open internet”? Literally googling stuff takes up a substantial portion of any software engineer’s day. I would seriously doubt anyone who says otherwise.
I agree, though in context I assumed that using the internet was implied by my statement.
Name and shame. This is disgusting.
Bearing in mind we're only hearing one side of the story, of course
Assuming, in good faith, that the poster is telling the truth, either the company lied and the homework project wasn’t that good, or they were more interested in whiteboard hazing and the project didn’t mean very much. What’s more like real software engineering: writing code on the spot, on a whiteboard, in front of people; or writing code at home, which you can then have a conversation about? A sane hiring process would put more weight on one than the other, and this company obviously wasn’t sane.
I won’t name but it wasn’t shameful. They ended up looking for someone with experience more balanced between web services and embedded devices, and my background was very focused on embedded. Had they gone purely by the homework, they might not have gotten the best candidate.
+1
Hear, hear!
I had much the same experience earlier this year, probably with a different company. I think that maybe interview processes are sometimes created via a tug of war between different groups, and to function at all, the people who will be working with a new hire have to have a veto at the end. So you may start out talking to senior people elsewhere that are paddling the boat in a completely different direction.
> If you complain about having to spend a couple hours outside the interview on work, maybe you don't really want the job that bad enough
Maybe I'm talking to more than one company and don't feel like subjecting myself to this absolute nonsense over & over. Maybe I'm just feeling out the opportunity without having to worry about solving a made up issue and hope it conforms to what the employee reviewing it considers good.
What other in-demand professions(based on demand vs. qualified candidates) make potential employees sing & dance, and then go through a full interview process on top of that?
Do accountants have to balance a fictional company's books or find the most efficient structuring of a fictional company's taxes across multiple jurisdictions before being allowed to have an actual conversation with a peer about the role?
Maybe I'm talking to more than one company and don't feel like subjecting myself to this absolute nonsense over & over. Maybe I'm just feeling out the opportunity without having to worry about solving a made up issue and hope it conforms to what the employee reviewing it considers good.
What other in-demand professions(based on demand vs. qualified candidates) make potential employees sing & dance, and then go through a full interview process on top of that?
Do accountants have to balance a fictional company's books or find the most efficient structuring of a fictional company's taxes across multiple jurisdictions before being allowed to have an actual conversation with a peer about the role?
"Do accountants have to ..."
I'm a qualified accountant, and have, during an on-site interview, been asked to update a company cap table based on some information about additional fundraising and employee grant transactions.
I'm a qualified accountant, and have, during an on-site interview, been asked to update a company cap table based on some information about additional fundraising and employee grant transactions.
notwithstanding that (itself an interesting data point)
> before being allowed to have an actual conversation with a peer about the role?
> before being allowed to have an actual conversation with a peer about the role?
During the first conversation with a peer.
An interview is a two-way street. I've walked away from two interviews because the whole ordeal was going to be very time consuming and I just wasn't sold enough on the company.
I did do two coding exercises, though. In one case, the exercise was very fun, and I was able to use it as an excuse to work in a language that I didn't work often in. In another case, I really believed in the company, but I would only do something that took about 1-2 hours.
I did do two coding exercises, though. In one case, the exercise was very fun, and I was able to use it as an excuse to work in a language that I didn't work often in. In another case, I really believed in the company, but I would only do something that took about 1-2 hours.
To add to this; if a company does want me to put effort into proving I can code a solution to whatever problem, then they better have gone to the trouble of:
a) setting up a git repo with working code in it (including tests, dependencies and whatever else) so I don't have to worry about inane(but taxing) decisions in terms of project structure/code style. Also, verify it works before sending it out to candidates.
b) including clear & detailed instructions on what is expected
c) given the test to current employees (blind) & timed them on it (allowing for the fact they know the domain & technology)
d) make it somewhat representative of day to day. i.e. I have 0 interest in spending time configuring and doing anything which is a 1-off task such as authentication etc..(unless the companies primary product is security/auth)
In short, make it easy for me to prove myself.
a) setting up a git repo with working code in it (including tests, dependencies and whatever else) so I don't have to worry about inane(but taxing) decisions in terms of project structure/code style. Also, verify it works before sending it out to candidates.
b) including clear & detailed instructions on what is expected
c) given the test to current employees (blind) & timed them on it (allowing for the fact they know the domain & technology)
d) make it somewhat representative of day to day. i.e. I have 0 interest in spending time configuring and doing anything which is a 1-off task such as authentication etc..(unless the companies primary product is security/auth)
In short, make it easy for me to prove myself.
(c) and (d) are sensible suggestions, but I've got to question your (a) and (b).
It sounds like you don't think much of testing, if you're expecting tests to be handed to you. Testing is hard! Writing good test cases can be as hard as writing the code itself. If your tests are inane, then you're going to catch the easy bugs and miss all the hard ones.
And when on Earth do you get clear and detailed instructions on what is expected? At least in my current job, I feel like half of what I do is turn vague expectations into crisp technical requirements. If part of the assignment is for you to write a function, I can't include test cases for you because I don't know what type signature you're going to pick for the function. This isn't an inane detail. In some ways the signature of the function is more important than the implementation: the implementation is local to the function, but the signature is going to effect the structure of all of the code that uses it.
It sounds like you don't think much of testing, if you're expecting tests to be handed to you. Testing is hard! Writing good test cases can be as hard as writing the code itself. If your tests are inane, then you're going to catch the easy bugs and miss all the hard ones.
And when on Earth do you get clear and detailed instructions on what is expected? At least in my current job, I feel like half of what I do is turn vague expectations into crisp technical requirements. If part of the assignment is for you to write a function, I can't include test cases for you because I don't know what type signature you're going to pick for the function. This isn't an inane detail. In some ways the signature of the function is more important than the implementation: the implementation is local to the function, but the signature is going to effect the structure of all of the code that uses it.
> It sounds like you don't think much of testing, if you're expecting tests to be handed to you
Should have been clearer They should have tests to cover their code (not the code I'm going to right).. This cuts down on me adding testing libs needed, any setup, and laying down a pattern for their expectations(wrt tests). With expectation dev would add tests to cover their code.
> And when on Earth do you get clear and detailed instructions on what is expected?
On the job, I have easy access to the information/easy access to the people with the information. Not to mention personal relationships with the people I need to query.
My usage of 'inane' refers to things that a dev on the job won't be doing 99.9% of the time. Things that take effort & thought to setup(initial project setup) but don't really give any insight into whether a dev can write & architect code well. All the things a company already has in place.
Should have been clearer They should have tests to cover their code (not the code I'm going to right).. This cuts down on me adding testing libs needed, any setup, and laying down a pattern for their expectations(wrt tests). With expectation dev would add tests to cover their code.
> And when on Earth do you get clear and detailed instructions on what is expected?
On the job, I have easy access to the information/easy access to the people with the information. Not to mention personal relationships with the people I need to query.
My usage of 'inane' refers to things that a dev on the job won't be doing 99.9% of the time. Things that take effort & thought to setup(initial project setup) but don't really give any insight into whether a dev can write & architect code well. All the things a company already has in place.
Ah, that all makes a lot more sense :-)
>If you complain about having to spend a couple hours outside the interview on work, maybe you don't really want the job that bad enough.
As an employee, I see it the opposite way. If a company is offloading interviewing costs onto interviewees in this way, then I am competing as a commodity and the overall offer is unlikely to be good. A company with this sort of process can afford to test everyone and pick up the 0.1% of folks who are geniuses that don't know that they're worth $150k+ at a salary of $60k/yr.
If I'm not imposing costs proportional to what I'm expending, I'm unnecessarily weakening my negotiating position and setting up the wrong incentives. This is why it's a good idea to get your customer service complaint resolved through tying up a phone agent, making a complaint on twitter, or generating a paper trail that concerns the "no regulatory incidents" department.
As an employee, I see it the opposite way. If a company is offloading interviewing costs onto interviewees in this way, then I am competing as a commodity and the overall offer is unlikely to be good. A company with this sort of process can afford to test everyone and pick up the 0.1% of folks who are geniuses that don't know that they're worth $150k+ at a salary of $60k/yr.
If I'm not imposing costs proportional to what I'm expending, I'm unnecessarily weakening my negotiating position and setting up the wrong incentives. This is why it's a good idea to get your customer service complaint resolved through tying up a phone agent, making a complaint on twitter, or generating a paper trail that concerns the "no regulatory incidents" department.
>If you complain about having to spend a couple hours outside the interview on work, maybe you don't really want the job that bad enough. People will spend weeks on an unpaid open-source project but then complain about 2 hours for something that might get them a great job.
I've happily spent weeks on unpaid open source projects and I complain about it. Mostly because homework requires no effort or investment on the company's part and it's too easy to hand it out to everybody and then toss candidates' hard work away after it's submitted because they don't like your name or something.
These days I mostly ignore homework requests and point companies to my GitHub profile. I haven't lost any good jobs that way. Companies that erect hoops that make it clear that their time is massively more valuable than yours before you're hired are going to treat you the same way once you're hired.
I disagree that homework is necessarily more realistic. IME all homework assignments have been the same kind of garbage asked by whiteboard happy companies - how to reverse a binary tree, etc. Pointless crap that has no relationship to 99% of real jobs in tech.
When I was running interviews I organized a 1 hour test during interview that was as realistic to the job in question as I could make it. I truly don't see why that isn't the standard.
I've happily spent weeks on unpaid open source projects and I complain about it. Mostly because homework requires no effort or investment on the company's part and it's too easy to hand it out to everybody and then toss candidates' hard work away after it's submitted because they don't like your name or something.
These days I mostly ignore homework requests and point companies to my GitHub profile. I haven't lost any good jobs that way. Companies that erect hoops that make it clear that their time is massively more valuable than yours before you're hired are going to treat you the same way once you're hired.
I disagree that homework is necessarily more realistic. IME all homework assignments have been the same kind of garbage asked by whiteboard happy companies - how to reverse a binary tree, etc. Pointless crap that has no relationship to 99% of real jobs in tech.
When I was running interviews I organized a 1 hour test during interview that was as realistic to the job in question as I could make it. I truly don't see why that isn't the standard.
in answer to number 3, those of us with kids probably aren't going to spend weeks on unpaid open source projects, if we are it will be ones we like, and just as we don't complain about having sex infrequently, watching Marvel movies late at night after everyone has gone to bed, or getting drunk with friends on rare occasions we won't complain about doing something we like as opposed to something we don't like and anyway most people that apply for a job apply for more than one job.
When my last gig got over I went through 10 places over a month and a week to find my next place. If homework was always only 2 hours each time that would be half a work week. The last homework I had to do actually needed some environment setup, but things had changed in some library etc. and I went through nearly 2 hours to setup environment I needed for the assignment. The homework was timed, I had 24 hours to complete from time it was sent. Somebody was sick that weekend and as a consequence I did not finish the assignment.
Supposedly applying for a job should take some hours to tailor make your resume, your cover letter and so forth, then some time to travel to interview and now extra hours to do homework. As far as might get me a great job it's been my experience that what it gets me is a job where people value getting things done but also having fun while doing it, with some foosball games and other perks littered about an open office all seemingly decorated by the same team working globally. There will of course be opportunities to determine the technical direction of projects and perhaps the company as a whole! etc. etc. Perhaps I am fortunate that all my jobs are great, but on the other hand if that is the case I am more likely to go for the job at the place that doesn't make me do the extra hours as opposed to the one that does.
on edit: of course people do complain about having sex infrequently but it is the infrequently they complain about, not the having.
When my last gig got over I went through 10 places over a month and a week to find my next place. If homework was always only 2 hours each time that would be half a work week. The last homework I had to do actually needed some environment setup, but things had changed in some library etc. and I went through nearly 2 hours to setup environment I needed for the assignment. The homework was timed, I had 24 hours to complete from time it was sent. Somebody was sick that weekend and as a consequence I did not finish the assignment.
Supposedly applying for a job should take some hours to tailor make your resume, your cover letter and so forth, then some time to travel to interview and now extra hours to do homework. As far as might get me a great job it's been my experience that what it gets me is a job where people value getting things done but also having fun while doing it, with some foosball games and other perks littered about an open office all seemingly decorated by the same team working globally. There will of course be opportunities to determine the technical direction of projects and perhaps the company as a whole! etc. etc. Perhaps I am fortunate that all my jobs are great, but on the other hand if that is the case I am more likely to go for the job at the place that doesn't make me do the extra hours as opposed to the one that does.
on edit: of course people do complain about having sex infrequently but it is the infrequently they complain about, not the having.
Seconded. I really like the idea of a small homework assignment. Here is the last one I did for an interview: https://github.com/mohaine/expense-allocation
It was a great screen for them and something to talk about durning the interview.
That said you still do need to do some coding during the interview though. We've had enough candidates bring in professional interviewers to solve the coding portion of our remote interviews that there is no way we would trust that the candidate actually solved the homework themselves. We no longer allow any remote interviews due this alone.
It was a great screen for them and something to talk about durning the interview.
That said you still do need to do some coding during the interview though. We've had enough candidates bring in professional interviewers to solve the coding portion of our remote interviews that there is no way we would trust that the candidate actually solved the homework themselves. We no longer allow any remote interviews due this alone.
Some food for thought...
What if a large group of developers banded together and said "We'll only interview with companies that offer us a range of choices on the interview process, because we want to be able to choose option(s) that suit our strengths. We do this because not only because we want to put our best selves forward but also because this helps nudge companies to explore the space of various interviewing methods, which ultimately makes the companies better off as well because they get better long-term matches."
What if a large group of developers banded together and said "We'll only interview with companies that offer us a range of choices on the interview process, because we want to be able to choose option(s) that suit our strengths. We do this because not only because we want to put our best selves forward but also because this helps nudge companies to explore the space of various interviewing methods, which ultimately makes the companies better off as well because they get better long-term matches."
Unpopular opinion, but I prefer to be “under the gun”. So much more efficient time wise.
Me too. Also, I don't want to do some work for "free".
I'd prefer to see it as an investment in yourself, so not really for "free". Also it's (probably) not like the company will make any money of the home assignment they give you.
The company makes money off of using this as a candidate screening tool in lieu of in-person engineer hours.
The fact that a company is cutting costs doesn't mean it is "making money". Nothing is being offloaded, it is just a process that doesn't require one of their employees to be present.
I think it is better for everyone this way. It is more accurate, it is less pressure and less demanding on the candidate, and it doesn't require an engineer sitting there asking intro-CS questions to a stranger instead of working.
I think it is better for everyone this way. It is more accurate, it is less pressure and less demanding on the candidate, and it doesn't require an engineer sitting there asking intro-CS questions to a stranger instead of working.
They're likely not. Not only would they need to have a different question for each candidate, which kind of nullifies that being able to be used as a neutral judgement, but the code produced likely won't pass whatever internal code and style guides are used in the team and would need to be refactored to actually be used.
You're doing homework either way: either take-home project homework or cram-before-interview homework.
Totally agree with you! I prefer "homework" too. It's a bit crazy trying to solve an Interaction design problem on the spot, while people sit there and watch. On the job, designers never do this unless they're working in a group .
P.S. I really suck at writing on whiteboards, it feels like my handwriting transforms into one of an 8 year old.
P.S. I really suck at writing on whiteboards, it feels like my handwriting transforms into one of an 8 year old.
Spot on daenz. As with everything, as long as people (if we can call those who work in HR people - see: 'note' below) allow consideration and thoughtfulness to guide their policies and practices, things will usually be agreeable for all involved.
Speaking from experience, shooting 1~2 very detailed hypothetical situations (i.e. 'homework') to a candidate 1 hour prior to their interview and asking them to think of responses to a few 'hard questions' that they will be asked to 1) answer and 2) explain their reasoning during the interview tends to work well. This usually reduces candidate anxiety, helps the evaluating committee get a better look at the candidate's approach to problem solving and validates (or not) their previous experiences, and improves the flow and time management of interview itself.
Note: I'm a senior recruitment manager within the corporate HR Team of a Korean Engineering & Construction firm
Speaking from experience, shooting 1~2 very detailed hypothetical situations (i.e. 'homework') to a candidate 1 hour prior to their interview and asking them to think of responses to a few 'hard questions' that they will be asked to 1) answer and 2) explain their reasoning during the interview tends to work well. This usually reduces candidate anxiety, helps the evaluating committee get a better look at the candidate's approach to problem solving and validates (or not) their previous experiences, and improves the flow and time management of interview itself.
Note: I'm a senior recruitment manager within the corporate HR Team of a Korean Engineering & Construction firm
>Candidates spend many hours completing homework assignments for companies which are not sufficiently interested in them. This is abusing candidates. Knock it off.
Given a choice of spending 2-3 hours on a take home assignment vs. 1 hour of writing code on a whiteboard in front of 3 or more developers, I'd choose the former any day. It's not even close.
The author is taking one end of the spectrum and painting it as an endemic problem. It's not that.
edit: my strong preference for homework vs whiteboarding is because that's how I've solved problems and accomplished tasks for years. Whiteboarding to "see how I think" is not at all how I would think if I were work for them.
Given a choice of spending 2-3 hours on a take home assignment vs. 1 hour of writing code on a whiteboard in front of 3 or more developers, I'd choose the former any day. It's not even close.
The author is taking one end of the spectrum and painting it as an endemic problem. It's not that.
edit: my strong preference for homework vs whiteboarding is because that's how I've solved problems and accomplished tasks for years. Whiteboarding to "see how I think" is not at all how I would think if I were work for them.
>Whiteboarding to "see how I think" is not at all how I would think if I were work for them
Someone nailed it finally
Someone nailed it finally
I completely agree with that. However, at least in my experience, the take home assignment was used to replace one or all the phone screens. So it was always an elimination round until getting to the whiteboarding sessions.
I would especially like to call out Uber on that as a couple of years ago they wanted me to write some local public transportation service endpoint integrated with Google maps in order to get to the onsite interview. Told them I don't have time for that with my full time job and they just shrugged and were like 'ok, no worries, we look forward to seeing you on X'. So I guess it was also a sucker elimination round.
I would especially like to call out Uber on that as a couple of years ago they wanted me to write some local public transportation service endpoint integrated with Google maps in order to get to the onsite interview. Told them I don't have time for that with my full time job and they just shrugged and were like 'ok, no worries, we look forward to seeing you on X'. So I guess it was also a sucker elimination round.
The problem is effort asymmetry. For in-person interviews, company must spend as much time as candidate is spending in evaluation. If homework thing becomes standard, I'm afraid that will become first line of filtering because it doesn't cost much to company. So you will still get in-person interview and may be even bit of whiteboarding (to make sure your friend didn't took test for you or somehow you cheated out by getting questions before hand).
You can look at the test process in terms of game theory where one player deals with several players who are not all equally qualified and have incentive to get the prize. So the adversarial mechanics will eventually ensue and folks will try to "game" the system. If you invent whiteboarding as defence, folks will try to invent leetcode as counter measure. If you invent homework as defence, you can bet sites pop all over that allows you to search problem and frameworks and download the common solutions with a click.
You can look at the test process in terms of game theory where one player deals with several players who are not all equally qualified and have incentive to get the prize. So the adversarial mechanics will eventually ensue and folks will try to "game" the system. If you invent whiteboarding as defence, folks will try to invent leetcode as counter measure. If you invent homework as defence, you can bet sites pop all over that allows you to search problem and frameworks and download the common solutions with a click.
I disagree with one click solutions for homework being viable. In my view, the best way to assign homework would be to take a small feature or an interesting bugfix a current developer already solved, and assign it to the candidate. Of course, this is tough if you want to keep your code secret and can't isolate the component/service/something source code from the rest of the system.
The core issue in interviewing is exactly this: asking a good efficient question! It doesn't matter if you use whiteboarding or homework or take a long walk together (Steve Jobs style). Most companies cannot expose their internal code base and expect someone to fix bugs in an hour of time. Ultimately you have to simplify the problem, chip away the unnecessary stuff and still it be good enough to evaluate candidate effectively. So if you think about this more deeply, you might realize that whiteboarding or IDEs or just talking is merely a medium to deliver the question and consume the answer. A vast majority of effectiveness of your interview doesn't depend on the medium but actual content of the question.
> you can bet sites pop all over that allows you to search problem and frameworks and download the common solutions with a click.
Sounds like a lucrative business, especially if you can introduce enough variety into the downloaded code to prevent detection by a system like the anti-plagiarizing systems colleges use.
Sounds like a lucrative business, especially if you can introduce enough variety into the downloaded code to prevent detection by a system like the anti-plagiarizing systems colleges use.
There are techniques to identify a person based on their writing. Perhaps software could be developed that takes a sample of a persons writing, and then modifies text to match their style. Of course one would have to be careful that the introduced variations are not just in identifiers and whitespace, or plagiarism could still trivially be detected by comparing the compiled binaries (after stripping debug symbols, and assuming a compiler supporting repeatable builds).
I would fully expect rent-a-coder style service from Asia popping up to take on your homework question by an experienced programmer for a modest fee.
Interesting. I'm the opposite. I'd rather pseudocode something on a whiteboard than spend my personal time doing it.
As long as the interviewer isn't a stickler for correct syntax when I'm writing stuff on the whiteboard.
As long as the interviewer isn't a stickler for correct syntax when I'm writing stuff on the whiteboard.
If there really is a developer shortage that we're always hearing about, then why don't more developers say "f. you" and walk away from homework assignments, 5-round interviews, cubicle farms instead of offices, etc. It would be a self-correcting problem -- companies that wanted good candidates would stop doing this shit. The only explanation I can come up with is that the developer shortage doesn't exist. Maybe it's a developer glut but we don't realize it yet?
> why don't more developers say "f. you" and walk away from homework assignments, 5-round interviews, cubicle farms instead of offices, etc
Some of us do and some of us don't find it all that terrible. I've declined interviews with homework and told the company I didn't think their interview process was reasonable. Companies are looking for leaders in addition to code monkeys - having a stance on what's reasonable that you can support and explain in a professional manner might lose you a few job opportunities, but it might also win you some respect and serve as a signal that you're mature enough to evaluate the landscape and make judgement calls about what actually is reasonable, which is something managers (people leaders) and architects (technical leaders) do on a day to day basis.
On the other hand, I find whiteboarding to be fairly reasonable for most candidates. I recognize that are a few candidates with social anxiety problems who might only be able to perform ubder an alternate process but in these cases, I think it's reasonable for the candidate to ask and then for the company to accommodate.
Some of us do and some of us don't find it all that terrible. I've declined interviews with homework and told the company I didn't think their interview process was reasonable. Companies are looking for leaders in addition to code monkeys - having a stance on what's reasonable that you can support and explain in a professional manner might lose you a few job opportunities, but it might also win you some respect and serve as a signal that you're mature enough to evaluate the landscape and make judgement calls about what actually is reasonable, which is something managers (people leaders) and architects (technical leaders) do on a day to day basis.
On the other hand, I find whiteboarding to be fairly reasonable for most candidates. I recognize that are a few candidates with social anxiety problems who might only be able to perform ubder an alternate process but in these cases, I think it's reasonable for the candidate to ask and then for the company to accommodate.
This is a complex issue, but one key component is this the relative bargaining powers of the parties [1].
Supply and demand in the job market is only one component of the bargaining power. Social norms and many other factors play in.
The field of Organizational Ecology [2] also can offer some metaphors about what is happening. Both herd behavior and organizational inertia are significant factors that explain how companies interview.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_ecology
Supply and demand in the job market is only one component of the bargaining power. Social norms and many other factors play in.
The field of Organizational Ecology [2] also can offer some metaphors about what is happening. Both herd behavior and organizational inertia are significant factors that explain how companies interview.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_ecology
Excellent observation. We should all be asking ourselves why the laws of supply and demand aren't asserting themselves in the software development space. From what I see, companies are aggressively forcing rates lower and doubling down on insanely obtuse hazing rituals.
If demand were truly inelastic (what a "shortage" would imply) then rates/salaries would be rising and the on-boarding processes would streamline.
Their behavior appears to telegraph that there is no actual shortage.
If demand were truly inelastic (what a "shortage" would imply) then rates/salaries would be rising and the on-boarding processes would streamline.
Their behavior appears to telegraph that there is no actual shortage.
My interpretation (which I think is "more correct" than yours and your parent's because it subsumes both) is that there's a good developer shortage and bad developer glut, and the interview process is an attempt to sort an individual developer into one of the two buckets.
Although from personal experience, I've been rejected from several companies and gotten more than one amazing offers at the same time (i.e. in the same "I want a new job" career cycle). So maybe the categories aren't that clear cut.
Although from personal experience, I've been rejected from several companies and gotten more than one amazing offers at the same time (i.e. in the same "I want a new job" career cycle). So maybe the categories aren't that clear cut.
The thing about separating developers into good and bad is that it also flies in the face of software engineering culture- the idea that you have to have a Growth Mindset and you can Level Up through Best Practices and Deep Work and Teach Yourself to Code after 10,000-Hours (or 24, but who's counting?). The idea is that if you work on passion projects and read up on the hottest frameworks and design patterns in your spare time, you can become good. On the other hand hacker culture also praises 10x developers who are seemingly born, not self-taught into it.
What this translates into industry is that managers and companies continuously grind through candidates in an attempt to find 10x rockstar ninja cliches, rather than finding diamonds in the rough and trying to just train people.
Of course, there are going to people who are worse than that level of quality. Maybe there should be some sort of guidance for them, that even if they fail interviews, they should at least get feedback as to how they can improve themselves, instead of being stuck in bad interview death spirals.
What this translates into industry is that managers and companies continuously grind through candidates in an attempt to find 10x rockstar ninja cliches, rather than finding diamonds in the rough and trying to just train people.
Of course, there are going to people who are worse than that level of quality. Maybe there should be some sort of guidance for them, that even if they fail interviews, they should at least get feedback as to how they can improve themselves, instead of being stuck in bad interview death spirals.
I think it's because the average developer is the not the most socially dominant or forward person. They probably tend towards the introvert side of life, and so they want people to like them.
That means they're easy to push around.
That means they're easy to push around.
Because ultimately the number of people who get really upset by interview process is small. Developers largely care about being paid large sums of money. Issues like open office design and take home work are tolerable when you are paid 300k.
The developer pool being paid 300k is minute, probably smaller than that of disgruntled interviewees.
As a candidate, I kind of like the homework thing. It's a lot closer to what you'd actually be doing on the job compared to white board tests, and interviewing is a pretty big time commitment on both sides so I don't feel taken advantage of if it's not crazy (the interviewer has to spend a lot of time on it too)
Also, I think it's really a stretch to call it abusive. If you feel like the test is too much of a time commitment or you don't think the company is serious, you can just not do it you know?
Also, I think it's really a stretch to call it abusive. If you feel like the test is too much of a time commitment or you don't think the company is serious, you can just not do it you know?
Something that takes an evening (whether code, writing, etc.) seems generally reasonable assuming that it serves as a reasonably effective screener. After all, some homework for an interview such as researching the company and their market space is typical. Something that takes 40 hours? Not so much.
If a homework assignment takes 40 hours then it’s likely that either you’re under-qualified or the company has some unrealistic expectations regrading the position.
Either way, you should reconsider your application.
Either way, you should reconsider your application.
Depends on the assignment. I don't regularly program these days but for work I often do (preparing/giving presentations, writing of various types) I could trivially come up with an assignment that would take a person skilled in the topic the better part of a week to do--especially given that they'd want to make their "homework" particularly impressive.
A third option could be that interview code takes longer to write than production code.
As someone who sat in interviews on the hiring side (or in the office with a colleague they hired) I must say that there homework was the best predictor for a candidates performance. CV, resume, does often not say much about a candidates programming skill and style.
I think for some candidates it really was a way to get hired when we wouldn't bothered to invite them for an interview (across the country).
I do think homework shouldn't be send out as a default by the recruiter. And the hiring party should make clear about the intention.
A homework should not be done on company product code, and it should be in some way standardized, i.e. we had a pool of 4 homework exercises that we send out depending on profile.
As a candidate I like these exercises if they are not too big. I have applied somewhere once and they asked me to read a 16 pages journal article within 4 days, to present. (It was not a job in academia but industry). In the end I think I was rejected because coming from a different field than the interviewer I emphasized the wrong aspects for him. They were not aware of some aspects I presented and would have expected from a candidate. So there is a danger in vetting candidates this way. Just because you have them time, they don't need to be a copy of you .
I think for some candidates it really was a way to get hired when we wouldn't bothered to invite them for an interview (across the country).
I do think homework shouldn't be send out as a default by the recruiter. And the hiring party should make clear about the intention.
A homework should not be done on company product code, and it should be in some way standardized, i.e. we had a pool of 4 homework exercises that we send out depending on profile.
As a candidate I like these exercises if they are not too big. I have applied somewhere once and they asked me to read a 16 pages journal article within 4 days, to present. (It was not a job in academia but industry). In the end I think I was rejected because coming from a different field than the interviewer I emphasized the wrong aspects for him. They were not aware of some aspects I presented and would have expected from a candidate. So there is a danger in vetting candidates this way. Just because you have them time, they don't need to be a copy of you .
My company, a fully remote consulting firm, uses test projects for some candidates whose skills we cannot fully evaluate using the code samples they have submitted. We only use test projects under conditions designed to skirt the clear pitfalls mentioned in this article.
- We pay all candidates for the test project, whether they pass or fail. The original article did not mention paying for homework, which we concluded was the only fair way to treat the excess time candidates spend helping us make a decision.
- Passing the test project means you move on in the process; we don't knowingly pit two candidates against each other.
- The project and a corresponding scoring rubric are predefined by position.
- We pay all candidates for the test project, whether they pass or fail. The original article did not mention paying for homework, which we concluded was the only fair way to treat the excess time candidates spend helping us make a decision.
- Passing the test project means you move on in the process; we don't knowingly pit two candidates against each other.
- The project and a corresponding scoring rubric are predefined by position.
This lines up with what I finally concluded (and blogged about) as well - find some small, somewhat isolated project and pay them for it. My preference would be for it to be a project you actually intend to use, especially if they also need to interact with your team in some small way. This way you get to actually seem them in action - how do they communicate, what questions do they ask, how do they approach the project. You see the candidate in the context in which you intend for them work.
We've toyed with either paying them for something we can use or asking them to add a feature to one of the open source projects under our care — but in either case, you lose the reliability and objectivity of the task, because different candidates will have better or worse prompts. Using the same prompt for everyone means we can use the same rubric for everyone.
I also think paying for the time is the only way it can be fair, in particular for more experienced candidates who will resent the time wasted as opposed to junior candidates who could see it as being given an opportunity.
It'd be interesting to see paying candidates for there time during an interview process to be used as a form of money laundering...
"So please explain to me what you did to attract 121,498 applications for this job, the reasoning behind paying $500 to each & every applicant for the the time they spent interviewing, and why each applicant has a name like John Doe1, John Doe2, John DoeN, etc."
"So please explain to me what you did to attract 121,498 applications for this job, the reasoning behind paying $500 to each & every applicant for the the time they spent interviewing, and why each applicant has a name like John Doe1, John Doe2, John DoeN, etc."
This seems like a method for anti-money laundering? Taking money that you already legitimately hold and turning it into money that you can't explain. I'm not sure I see the use.
I recently did a homework assignment as the first step in an application process, and I didn't find it inappropriate or untoward at all. It's certainly not abusive, I don't understand why the author used this term. It got me through to the second step, a video conference interview with a couple developers and a chance to go over my code, explain my reasoning, answer some challenge questions, etc, in other words, tech screening. I didn't end up getting the position, but at no point did I feel my time was being wasted or that I was being disrespected.
You received a response. What if you hadn't? How many hours did you invest? How many of these would you be willing to attempt if you never got a response of any kind? When the author speaks of abuse, I believe -- in part -- this is what they're trying to highlight. For every submissions, like yours, that gets a response, there are probably hundreds that hear absolutely nothing.
I'm OK, within reason, with these homework assignments if they come after some kind of initial screening where the company has shown at least the minimum level of interest.
However, as the very first step, it feels off to me.
I'm OK, within reason, with these homework assignments if they come after some kind of initial screening where the company has shown at least the minimum level of interest.
However, as the very first step, it feels off to me.
And there's the asymmetrical relationship if you're asked for a several hours time commitment before they put any time into you.
I've been burned in too many interviews for this kind of homework garbage. I simply won't do it, if someone wants to waste 1-4 hours on something, go for it. My apps/etc I build should be enough to see my work.
I don't want to waste 1-4 hours for every job I apply to, especially when I'm not one of the final candidates. I'm often blown off for not being caucasian enough or liking whatever sportsball team or brand of music the rest of the crew is into. To often I feel I'm thrown into interviews because they need to interview 7-10 people. Same with interviews without phone screening, there are lots of questions I can ask that can save both me and the employer time and money by doing a phone screen first instead of driving to their place (mostly talking about 30+ minute or hour long drives). I've been burned too many times with things they forget to mention that make it a job not even worth my time (required 60hr work week, mandatory overtime, etc) things I can find out with a screening.
I don't want to waste 1-4 hours for every job I apply to, especially when I'm not one of the final candidates. I'm often blown off for not being caucasian enough or liking whatever sportsball team or brand of music the rest of the crew is into. To often I feel I'm thrown into interviews because they need to interview 7-10 people. Same with interviews without phone screening, there are lots of questions I can ask that can save both me and the employer time and money by doing a phone screen first instead of driving to their place (mostly talking about 30+ minute or hour long drives). I've been burned too many times with things they forget to mention that make it a job not even worth my time (required 60hr work week, mandatory overtime, etc) things I can find out with a screening.
Let’s compare this to a recent experience I had with a recruiter from Square. Among other things, I was told that in a 1 hour phone screen, I was to write code as if it were production code, and not “just interview hacking.” She also suggested I read Cracking the Coding Interview ! For a phone screen!
I think this is frankly ridiculous. What do you think the rest of the interview process is like? At best, it’s cargo culting. At worst, it’s abuse.
Edit: I should add that no guidance was given as to what the standards for “production code” in this phone screen were.
I think this is frankly ridiculous. What do you think the rest of the interview process is like? At best, it’s cargo culting. At worst, it’s abuse.
Edit: I should add that no guidance was given as to what the standards for “production code” in this phone screen were.
The Facebook recruiter told me that "successful candidates spend an average of 10-15 hours preparing"...for a 45 minute phone screen. For the onsite you're expected to spend a few weeks reading CtCI and working through the practice problems.
I wonder where they're getting those numbers from, as I didn't spend anywhere near that long preparing o_O If it was rephrased as "successful candidates will have spent an average of 10-15 hours writing code over the past week" (ie, just working your regular day job counts as "preparation", since you're flexing your coding muscles), that sounds more believable...
Nope. It's definitely interview specific prep.
Read /r/cscareerquestions/ to get an idea of the levels of prep that many candidates go through. Not everyone needs that level of prep - especially if they're interviewing candidates at their current job. (No better way to see how not to fail by seeing endless failures)
People prepping 100+ hours for interviews at these big tech companies is completely common. After all, spending 100 hours to get 100k+ more comp is a pretty good tradeoff. It's just sad when you do all that prep but fail anyway.
Read /r/cscareerquestions/ to get an idea of the levels of prep that many candidates go through. Not everyone needs that level of prep - especially if they're interviewing candidates at their current job. (No better way to see how not to fail by seeing endless failures)
People prepping 100+ hours for interviews at these big tech companies is completely common. After all, spending 100 hours to get 100k+ more comp is a pretty good tradeoff. It's just sad when you do all that prep but fail anyway.
It might be a good tradeoff for the individual candidate, but it’s a terrible practice for the hiring company. It’s like hiring a physicist by giving them a pop quiz on quantum electrodynamics.
If what they meant, then they’re not saying anything meaningful. Anyone working full time as a software engineer who isn’t slacking off to an unimaginable extent is spending 10-15 hours writing code in the course of a week.
For software engineering positions I'd expect you're right - for my own role (production engineering) it's a meaningful metric as we're often hiring sysadmins who have used their coding skills to automate themselves out of a job, while filtering out the sysadmins who have only ever used off-the-shelf tools without looking under the hood :)
At Sourcegraph we faced the same decision and decided to go with an option for paid “homework” projects. It’s working very well so far. The payment is an important element of respect. More info at https://about.sourcegraph.com/blog/our-project-based-intervi....
100%. Paying someone or spending your time to work with them means you value their time.
Paying shows you have skin in the game, value the candidates time, and you are not just handing out a ton of take home projects to every one who applied. I am sure some companies have the money to do so, but generally I think that is not the norm.
Off topic/curious: Is the take home project expected to be honor system 'closed book/closed internet'?
Off topic/curious: Is the take home project expected to be honor system 'closed book/closed internet'?
I had a friend that did an interview homework assignment, was declined for the job, then found out that they used his assignment's code in production through a friend that already worked at the company.
While I'll admit that this is atypical, it seems like something a more nefarious company could abuse.
While I'll admit that this is atypical, it seems like something a more nefarious company could abuse.
So it was an accurate depiction of what they would be working on? It seems like this is akin to the goal.
And yet, a for-profit company getting free consulting time under the aegis of an interview strikes me as unethical.
I suppose that's true; no test like production.
I think it was probably a good thing that he was declined, a company that would do that probably isn't a great place to work.
I think it was probably a good thing that he was declined, a company that would do that probably isn't a great place to work.
That is... missing the point.
That's missing a tangential point, but not THE ostensible point (topical)?
If they paid for the work like more reputable companies do, that wouldn't have been a problem.
I can't help but think that candidate should feel lucky to have escaped that car crash. Think about how hard up your company would have to be to ship code that someone else has written with no warranty, no support and not even the knowledge that their code would go into production. Just yuck!
I've only interviewed with one company that did a homework assignment "right" - it was time constrained, it was after an initial phonescreen, I was still more on the junior side, and the onsite interview included a follow up on the homework assignment to extend it in some way.
But generally, I agree. There are enough other ways to screen people for basic competency (20 min tech conversation, looking at StackOverflow profiles, etc.) that it seems unnecessary for anyone except junior developers.
But generally, I agree. There are enough other ways to screen people for basic competency (20 min tech conversation, looking at StackOverflow profiles, etc.) that it seems unnecessary for anyone except junior developers.
I'd rather have a weekend homework assignment than a loop of coding interviews. Much more reasonable assessment of skills & potential, in my opinion. Happy to do whatever algorithm madness thrown my way in that case. It's a real tough gig to solve some ambiguous algorithm problem in 40 minutes on a whiteboard, analyse it, and then discuss optimality. Gets worse if the loop is serial algorithms interviews.
This is one of the exact points made in the article: if it’s a screening question, it should be really basic, like FizzBuzz level. If it’s an evaluation that goes into whether to make an offer, then the scope needs to be clear, and it should replace a portion of the actual onsite interview.
The problem is that it typically doesn’t replace part of the interview. Incidentally, this is my criticism of TripleByte... pass their interview, and you skip to the onsite with a bunch of companies. But you still have to do the full dog and pony show with the client company, except the phone screens, and there’s a substantial time investment involved up front. You need to do a lot of onsites before you recoup that.
The problem is that it typically doesn’t replace part of the interview. Incidentally, this is my criticism of TripleByte... pass their interview, and you skip to the onsite with a bunch of companies. But you still have to do the full dog and pony show with the client company, except the phone screens, and there’s a substantial time investment involved up front. You need to do a lot of onsites before you recoup that.
I have had great success giving out a very simple homework assignment before in-person interviews. I ask you to write me a class which will score a bowling game. Just hard enough to show me that you know how to code, but not so difficult that you will spend hours working on it. Gives us something to talk about while I figure out if your personality will be a good fit with the rest of our team (because really, that's number one on my priority list).
I'm biased, I suppose, because I loathe algorithm questions in interviews or whiteboard coding. Neither does a good job of letting me show you I'm not an idiot.
I'm biased, I suppose, because I loathe algorithm questions in interviews or whiteboard coding. Neither does a good job of letting me show you I'm not an idiot.
Or as an alternative -- give them something legitimately beneficial to your company to work on, pay them standard consulting rates. This puts the impetus on the company to have fairly high certainty the candidate is qualified before the take-home, and the candidate gets compensated for their time even if a hire isn't made.
We only do homework as a final screening test for candidates. If it's any more than a simple project, we pay them standard rates. That way no one feels taken advantage of. Plus, if they bomb it and they're getting paid for it then you KNOW they're not the right candidate, even if every other test was aced, so it really is an excellent tool for us. But again, ONLY at the end of the process when we're making a final decision between, most likely, two candidates.
This is really not that hard to do right in my opinion. This is what we did for a "homework assignment" after a 30 minute phone and 30 minute team screen were already done:
1. Supervisor had candidate sign mutual-NDA, work for hire at $X/hr rate & IP assignment agreement on docusign.
2. Potential future supervisor gave the candidate access to a repo and assigned a production task that should take less than 10 hours to complete.
3. Candidate does the assignment, communicates with supervisor via email/repo where necessary and a check gets cut for the hours worked.
4. Hire/No Hire decision made
Should take less than a week in total.
1. Supervisor had candidate sign mutual-NDA, work for hire at $X/hr rate & IP assignment agreement on docusign.
2. Potential future supervisor gave the candidate access to a repo and assigned a production task that should take less than 10 hours to complete.
3. Candidate does the assignment, communicates with supervisor via email/repo where necessary and a check gets cut for the hours worked.
4. Hire/No Hire decision made
Should take less than a week in total.
>Supervisor had candidate sign mutual-NDA, work for hire at $X/hr rate & IP assignment agreement on docusign.
This would be a violation of the candidate's employment contract at many companies.
This would be a violation of the candidate's employment contract at many companies.
Perhaps, but totally unenforceable... It's a non-issue.
Developers are not slaves, and you cannot prevent them from doing outside work while looking for other jobs.
Developers are not slaves, and you cannot prevent them from doing outside work while looking for other jobs.
I totally agree, but I also think it's unprofessional behaviour to ask or expect someone to break the terms of an existing contract. Especially at the start of a new business relationship where building trust is really important.
I've had people submit code samples from their existing employer, with copyrights, "do not disclose" notices, and everything. I thought that was a red flag...
Don't know about the US but here it would be reason enough for my employer to terminate me right away. This is the default for employments. For work on the side, I need to ask my employer for permission. My employer will then be concerned that all labour protection laws will not be violated, which for example means that my employer must accept that I might not be able to work overtime for them, with a side contract, because I would surpass a 10h per day threshold
To cut the long story short: I would politely declined that model, even though I think it is sensible.
To cut the long story short: I would politely declined that model, even though I think it is sensible.
In terms of hours per day worked, what is the actual difference between doing an unpaid take-home test? Signing a contract is just being honest about the time it's going to take to learn about the candidate.
What about onsite interviews, do you have to tell your supervisor that is the reason you are taking off work? Would they be OK with that?
What about onsite interviews, do you have to tell your supervisor that is the reason you are taking off work? Would they be OK with that?
One major problem is that the employer has the right to monetize work products that are close enough to your jobs work. So if my side project is writing a novel, there isn't much danger and the employer must basically grant the permission.if it is related to coding things get trickier. With a contract for coding I would basically transfer monetization rights to you. for that I would have to ask my employer.
So I would not do take home exams that could appear to be consulting work etc. Of it appears to be a test, it is fine(r).
Note that this is tricky for open source work too, you are doing on the side. (At least in my legislation). Contributions that are closely related to my work topics I usually ask for a permit according to company policy. For completely unrelated stuff (writing that interpreter in prolog, etc.) I assume my employer is disinterested (they really are). I cannot assume that for contract work with another company.
Anyway, a judge, given a CONTRACT with another company that was not approved has the easiest case in front of them. This is the situation I want to avoid. I wouldn't bet on a judge to dive into the details on what stuff was coded in this situation.
You mention the on-site interview. This is easy. It is not a consulting or contracting gig. So I don't need to get a side-work permit, and they are treated as any of my other absences when I don't supply a reason.
So I would not do take home exams that could appear to be consulting work etc. Of it appears to be a test, it is fine(r).
Note that this is tricky for open source work too, you are doing on the side. (At least in my legislation). Contributions that are closely related to my work topics I usually ask for a permit according to company policy. For completely unrelated stuff (writing that interpreter in prolog, etc.) I assume my employer is disinterested (they really are). I cannot assume that for contract work with another company.
Anyway, a judge, given a CONTRACT with another company that was not approved has the easiest case in front of them. This is the situation I want to avoid. I wouldn't bet on a judge to dive into the details on what stuff was coded in this situation.
You mention the on-site interview. This is easy. It is not a consulting or contracting gig. So I don't need to get a side-work permit, and they are treated as any of my other absences when I don't supply a reason.
"Side-work permit"? Is that actually a thing?
I don't know if that's a thing per se, but my former employer (Fortune 500 non-FAANG) quite definitely claimed any code I wrote during my employment whatsoever.
I did one time formally ask (just to see what would happen) whether I could volunteer at the Red Cross, which demanded I sign a boilerplate intellectual property agreement saying anything I made as a volunteer belonged to them. The letter of my employment agreement was incompatible as all IP I made belonged to my employer. The question went all the way up to the corporate counsel, who presumably said "obviously a troublemaker wasting my time with this sh*t" and responded "NO".
I thought about writing the CEO because it was absurd you technically couldn't volunteer with the Red Cross, but of course, there were most likely lots of people who simply ignored the issue and/or ignore what they sign. There were certainly people in my division who appeared to be flagrantly violating the prohibition on an outside business while employed, but no doubt had the sense not to specifically ask permission.
I did one time formally ask (just to see what would happen) whether I could volunteer at the Red Cross, which demanded I sign a boilerplate intellectual property agreement saying anything I made as a volunteer belonged to them. The letter of my employment agreement was incompatible as all IP I made belonged to my employer. The question went all the way up to the corporate counsel, who presumably said "obviously a troublemaker wasting my time with this sh*t" and responded "NO".
I thought about writing the CEO because it was absurd you technically couldn't volunteer with the Red Cross, but of course, there were most likely lots of people who simply ignored the issue and/or ignore what they sign. There were certainly people in my division who appeared to be flagrantly violating the prohibition on an outside business while employed, but no doubt had the sense not to specifically ask permission.
It's not even so much about the contract or the payment. Doing work for a competitor period may well be a violation of an employment contract. Now, sure. Probably no one will find out and you're not really doing work on the side for a competitor. But, personally, I'd be very hesitant to do something that explicitly violates at least the letter of my employment contract even if I were pretty sure I wouldn't be caught.
By contrast, it's no one's business what I'm doing on my day off. And interviewing with other companies is almost certainly not a violation of my contract.
By contrast, it's no one's business what I'm doing on my day off. And interviewing with other companies is almost certainly not a violation of my contract.
Interesting. Where are you from? In the US, nobody even knows about side jobs unless you tell them.
In the US most companies have some sort of "non-moonlighting" condition(s) as part of their employee agreement.
If they found out you could get in trouble, depending on the situation.
If they found out you could get in trouble, depending on the situation.
Yeah, I had one find out once. I got a "talking to" by a VP, early in my career, about my outside activities and promised to wind down the side work. I had told a coworker about all the extra cash I was bringing in. I didn't actually wind down anything though. The VP got moved to a different job, and I eventually left a couple years later anyway.
It's a double red flag:
1) If a potential hire is willing to violate their current employment contract they'll be willing to violate any contract you have with them.
2) If a company is happy to trounce into a legal gray area because it's "unenforceable" it may indicate some ethical questions about their leadership.
1) If a potential hire is willing to violate their current employment contract they'll be willing to violate any contract you have with them.
2) If a company is happy to trounce into a legal gray area because it's "unenforceable" it may indicate some ethical questions about their leadership.
It's a non flag. Personally I don't even think about a trivial employment contract. They are basically boilerplate garbage akin to a EULA. Sure I'll sign it and then ignore it. The only time I was called out on an employment contract I very diplomatically told them to fuck off. And that was the end of it.
A lot of the commenters here are saying they like homework assignments because it’s a test that’s similar to the job, more so than solving a problem on a white board with no resources and a group of people watching you. I agree with all of that. Here’s where homework assignments are abusive- when they reject you with no critique of your work whatsoever. That’s been my experience, and it’s total, disrespectful bullshit.
If I spend time on your made up assignment, you owe me a detailed response that shows that you actually looked at my work and can critique it credibly.
If I spend time on your made up assignment, you owe me a detailed response that shows that you actually looked at my work and can critique it credibly.
The article has a bit of a weird structure. The premise is that homework is abusive. And the final bullet points elide the exceptions to this rule... which seem broad enough to make the premise weak.
Using homework as a first-pass screen in your interview process, unchecked, is definitely a smell that you're not using this tool appropriately.
However I use it in the process I've set up successfully as a way to give me something to code-review with a candidate when we do a final interview. It's a small, limited scope project. We give plenty of time to finish it. And the chances are good if you complete it we'll give you a final interview.
I find it helpful because I don't have to make assumptions about the candidates knowledge and skill level from a cold-start. I can ask them questions based on their code. How did you interpret this requirement? What trade-offs did you consider when you chose this data-structure? Etc. If their code shows an aptitude for computer science fundamentals I can ask them questions about algorithmic complexity in Big-O notation or I can scale it back and see if they understand the same concept using more descriptive means. Conducting an interview is hard if you don't have a starting point for a conversation.
For more experienced candidates with a history of open-source work do consider allowing them to present their own code in place of your standard homework assignment. It has the same effect and shows that you respect them enough to review their work. I think that's rather nice.
Using homework as a first-pass screen in your interview process, unchecked, is definitely a smell that you're not using this tool appropriately.
However I use it in the process I've set up successfully as a way to give me something to code-review with a candidate when we do a final interview. It's a small, limited scope project. We give plenty of time to finish it. And the chances are good if you complete it we'll give you a final interview.
I find it helpful because I don't have to make assumptions about the candidates knowledge and skill level from a cold-start. I can ask them questions based on their code. How did you interpret this requirement? What trade-offs did you consider when you chose this data-structure? Etc. If their code shows an aptitude for computer science fundamentals I can ask them questions about algorithmic complexity in Big-O notation or I can scale it back and see if they understand the same concept using more descriptive means. Conducting an interview is hard if you don't have a starting point for a conversation.
For more experienced candidates with a history of open-source work do consider allowing them to present their own code in place of your standard homework assignment. It has the same effect and shows that you respect them enough to review their work. I think that's rather nice.
I probably won't ever do a homework assignment again, unless I feel like I absolutely have to. It's not just the time involved, it's the time involved plus the apparent necessity for me to ask what the results were.
It seems obvious to me that if a company asks an applicant to do a homework project, then when the applicant submits the project, the evaluation and feedback (positive or negative) should happen automatically and quickly.
It seems obvious to me that if a company asks an applicant to do a homework project, then when the applicant submits the project, the evaluation and feedback (positive or negative) should happen automatically and quickly.
Last time I went around interviewing, companies that passed out homework basically front-loaded the candidate time commitment so that they only had to put in their own time if the candidate looked promising.
The homework was not bad in itself, but was a symptom of a larger problem. Namely, the company was unwilling to invest equal energy into the interviewing process as their candidates. So my first impression of the company was that it was full of brusque assholes that valued their time more than mine. It seemed patronizing.
This was certainly also possible without homework, as in the case of the companies that wanted me to disclose my salary expectations up front, without disclosing what they expected to pay the median candidate. They wanted to reject quickly, so they could reject more candidates, and finally get to the good one that they'd want to hire. As the article author might put it, don't use an evaluation tool as a screening tool.
The homework was not bad in itself, but was a symptom of a larger problem. Namely, the company was unwilling to invest equal energy into the interviewing process as their candidates. So my first impression of the company was that it was full of brusque assholes that valued their time more than mine. It seemed patronizing.
This was certainly also possible without homework, as in the case of the companies that wanted me to disclose my salary expectations up front, without disclosing what they expected to pay the median candidate. They wanted to reject quickly, so they could reject more candidates, and finally get to the good one that they'd want to hire. As the article author might put it, don't use an evaluation tool as a screening tool.
Link is (2013). As a further note, the writer is Gayle Laakmann McDowell, author of CTCI (Cracking the Coding Interview), which might explain its covertly pro-whiteboard interview stance. Though I agree with the comments saying that her actual criticisms aren't as clickbait or absolutist as the title makes it sound.
Of course she doesn't like homework assignments. She can't sell books and make money off that idea.
By assigning homework, companies are also missing out on an opportunity to get to know how the candidate thinks and works on a problem.
It's as if you're scheduling a full-day interview but only being present for half of it.
And the thing is, especially if the opening is for a less senior position, observing the person while they are completing the assignment can help you get a much better measure of the person's skills, and can also prevent them having to toil for hours with no feedback about whether they're on the right track. If you're observing, the candidate might come up with a suboptimal solution, but with a few gentle nudges, they might correct course and prove themselves to be a very capable person. And you would have totally missed that if it were homework.
It's as if you're scheduling a full-day interview but only being present for half of it.
And the thing is, especially if the opening is for a less senior position, observing the person while they are completing the assignment can help you get a much better measure of the person's skills, and can also prevent them having to toil for hours with no feedback about whether they're on the right track. If you're observing, the candidate might come up with a suboptimal solution, but with a few gentle nudges, they might correct course and prove themselves to be a very capable person. And you would have totally missed that if it were homework.
The opposite is more likely true. You are very unlikely to get a sense of how someone approaches a problem in an interview setting.
If given an assignment, it is very easy to have them explain after the fact.
If given an assignment, it is very easy to have them explain after the fact.
"Thank you for the interest you have shown in me. With regard to the current home project you have assigned me to progress in the interviewing process, I cannot but feel it's somewhat excessive with regards to my time, while being completely free and noncommittal for you.
On the other hand, I certainly understand that you must vet that candidates can actually produce quality software before extending an offer. I believe we can reach a reasonable understanding where I am compensated at my standard consulting rate of $150/hour for any project or homework you might have. This way, the process becomes fair with my time and it also gives you the possibility to thoroughly test my abilities by risking no more than a token amount.
Thank you, eagerly awaiting your response."
On the other hand, I certainly understand that you must vet that candidates can actually produce quality software before extending an offer. I believe we can reach a reasonable understanding where I am compensated at my standard consulting rate of $150/hour for any project or homework you might have. This way, the process becomes fair with my time and it also gives you the possibility to thoroughly test my abilities by risking no more than a token amount.
Thank you, eagerly awaiting your response."
Ok, so let's summarize: no homework assignments, no whiteboard interviews, no "trick" questions, no "personality fit" questions, no work-sample exercises (could be interpreted as unpaid work), no relying on credentials.
How are we supposed to hire anyone?
How are we supposed to hire anyone?
How about "here is our simple sample project and documentation, please study them and during interview we will fix a few simple books and discuss how to implement a bigger change or how to refactor the existing code". Fair for both sides and much more closer to actual work setting.
You could ask them about their experience and let them talk about the challenges that they have faced and maybe some of the things that they are proud of having accomplished / coded.
Homework assignments are fun and interesting to do, so long as I don't already have a job or I've golfed my day job down to a few hours a week. But if I have a non-trivial day job the intrusion into my personal life quickly becomes unmanageable. I declined to continue three opportunities because the homework was ridiculous in various ways.
If your organization assigns me homework, I'm going to look very carefully at it to ascertain whether the filtering function it serves is meat-grinder'y or not. If it feels like a meat grinder, you won't even get an answer from me as to why I didn't complete it. There just won't be any further contact.
If your organization assigns me homework, I'm going to look very carefully at it to ascertain whether the filtering function it serves is meat-grinder'y or not. If it feels like a meat grinder, you won't even get an answer from me as to why I didn't complete it. There just won't be any further contact.
We used timed (8 hours), paid homework to hire recently. It definitely was really helpful for one position in particular. Dunno why the article doesn’t mention this option.
Looking at the profile of the blog post’s author, she went to a prestigious school, worked at prestigious companies, and wrote a book on whiteboard challenges.
It is clearly very heavily in this person’s favor that interviews stay focused on these criteria over actual performance.
Our homework ended up weeding out some impressive looking candidates in favor of people who were less impressive and good at interviews but better at getting things done.
Looking at the profile of the blog post’s author, she went to a prestigious school, worked at prestigious companies, and wrote a book on whiteboard challenges.
It is clearly very heavily in this person’s favor that interviews stay focused on these criteria over actual performance.
Our homework ended up weeding out some impressive looking candidates in favor of people who were less impressive and good at interviews but better at getting things done.
I am a founder of a company that helps companies with screening candidates[0]. I understand the negative response towards this. But I feel there is a balance here: We advice our customers to send smaller problems (~30mins) meant to pre-screen the candidates (without wasting too much of their time). This followed by a phone interview is currently the best funnel we know so far (and we have been working on this problem for years now).
[0] https://remoteinterview.io
[0] https://remoteinterview.io
What would be an example of something at the same level you advise your customers to use?
To start with: a variant of FizzBuzz (string manipulation, sorting, fibonacci etc). We then combine this with plagiarism checker and code playback for the employer. Which gives them a pretty good signal if to set up an interview or not.
That seems reasonable as far as time commitment. But, problems like that typically have about 2-4 ways to code them, and usually 1-2 obvious ways. Not to mention, it’s going to be a max of maybe 25 lines of code. That makes me skeptical of the plagiarism detector, because it seems like it would either not detect much, or it could end up being overly sensitive.
These candidate screening portals that make me code in a web IDE are nightmare to me.
My main problem with all of them is that I don't have a chance to talk to an interviewer real time to ask questions, express my thought process or go though the problem together. The time limit is usually harsh, once I needed 5 more extra minutes and the system shut down the test, zero points, but I had it coded 90% and the rest was in my head.
Test cases are revealed _after_ the code is submitted (or not even at all) which is the reverse of what happens in real life.
They are solving the wrong problem. Yes, hiring is broken, you made it better for employers, but not for candidates. I guess this is what we get for bashing the whiteboard interviewing for years, finally the disruption has arrived.
My main problem with all of them is that I don't have a chance to talk to an interviewer real time to ask questions, express my thought process or go though the problem together. The time limit is usually harsh, once I needed 5 more extra minutes and the system shut down the test, zero points, but I had it coded 90% and the rest was in my head.
Test cases are revealed _after_ the code is submitted (or not even at all) which is the reverse of what happens in real life.
They are solving the wrong problem. Yes, hiring is broken, you made it better for employers, but not for candidates. I guess this is what we get for bashing the whiteboard interviewing for years, finally the disruption has arrived.
I think some simple tweaks by your employer could have made this system more comfortable for you too:
- Like giving ample time to the test and then deciding from the report if to approve or reject.
- Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions. I think these cases don't map to unit tests, they serve a different purpose here.
- Like giving ample time to the test and then deciding from the report if to approve or reject.
- Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions. I think these cases don't map to unit tests, they serve a different purpose here.
> Hidden test cases are to avoid hardcoded solutions
If that's the case, it's another way to prove my point that these portals are bad. I would expect that the company checks the submitted solutions so there is little reason to write "if (x == 5) return 1" style code if that's what you meant by hardcoded solutions.
If that's the case, it's another way to prove my point that these portals are bad. I would expect that the company checks the submitted solutions so there is little reason to write "if (x == 5) return 1" style code if that's what you meant by hardcoded solutions.
This is terrible advice for companies and interviewees. We've successfully used "homework" project when a candidate had potential, but didn't do well in-person for various reasons (nervousness, time pressure). In many cases we've hired them when they can produce something and talk over it afterwards.
Without this, they wouldn't have received an offer.
While I get they said "which are not sufficiently interested in them." but it's still an interview process to see if we should/should not hire.
Without this, they wouldn't have received an offer.
While I get they said "which are not sufficiently interested in them." but it's still an interview process to see if we should/should not hire.
This is something I support, provided the time involved for the candidate is roughly the same as the onsite interview. I can talk about code I’ve written in advance much more easily than anything can pull DP algorithms out of my ass on the spot.
As a destitute person who used to be on the A-List for hiring, homework is a deal breaker. I did one assignment out of desperation recently when a hiring manager approached me via twitter DM, and despite the good unofficial coffee meeting I didn't even make it to a phone screen after spending 2 days' free time working on the homework (about 4 hours). I knew I should have declined to begin with, perhaps could have spent more days, but it did take a number of them. They just said my submission wasn't up to par, which I knew would be the case given my time constraints... but the coffee meeting went well enough that it seemed okay and like it'd just be a formality, so I went ahead.
Opportunity cost, wise: the bottom of the barrel for pay is Day Labor, where I can make about $100/day after a 1-2 day wait list... putting the fair market price of the homework assignment at about $250. The hiring manager did Venmo me $100 for food, which was well appreciated... but unfortunately still didn't give me what I needed to do a good job on the homework. Not that it's directly productive work, but considering head fees are in the 5 figures, a little compensation to grease the gears doesn't seem like it'd hurt even in aggregate. Perhaps it'd incentivize the hiring company only giving homework to better screened candidates, as well.
Makes different points than ones in the article, which are the original reasons I opposed homework. But in addition to all that, it also blocks people without good living situations from the job (perhaps desirable for some reasons, calling it out).
Opportunity cost, wise: the bottom of the barrel for pay is Day Labor, where I can make about $100/day after a 1-2 day wait list... putting the fair market price of the homework assignment at about $250. The hiring manager did Venmo me $100 for food, which was well appreciated... but unfortunately still didn't give me what I needed to do a good job on the homework. Not that it's directly productive work, but considering head fees are in the 5 figures, a little compensation to grease the gears doesn't seem like it'd hurt even in aggregate. Perhaps it'd incentivize the hiring company only giving homework to better screened candidates, as well.
Makes different points than ones in the article, which are the original reasons I opposed homework. But in addition to all that, it also blocks people without good living situations from the job (perhaps desirable for some reasons, calling it out).
I like this idea. I HATE the homework, because one look at my resume tells you that even if half of it's true, I've been around the block and can pick up anything that doesn't actually require specializing in it since 2000 when I started working professionally out of college (as opposed to co-op jobs where I also did IT).
And very little in IT fits that bill.
IT hiring processes are part of the reason I took a sabbatical in 2016. I didn't have time for all this homework plus networking and interviews all for finding a new job on top of a new baby and a stressful day job.
Of my four eventual job offers, yes four, so I was clearly in demand, only one even had homework, and it was a short online logic quiz, not even coding. Everything else was phone/in person interviews.
Screw your homework. If you really need it, this article has a good mitigation plan.
And very little in IT fits that bill.
IT hiring processes are part of the reason I took a sabbatical in 2016. I didn't have time for all this homework plus networking and interviews all for finding a new job on top of a new baby and a stressful day job.
Of my four eventual job offers, yes four, so I was clearly in demand, only one even had homework, and it was a short online logic quiz, not even coding. Everything else was phone/in person interviews.
Screw your homework. If you really need it, this article has a good mitigation plan.
Did you have to whiteboard code/algorithm during the phone/person interview?
Great article. Agree with most of the points there.
It's an idea that looks great on paper but it's actually not that great.
It's like the 'unlimited vacation' rubbish. Like yeah, people area actually afraid of taking vacations or they take too much and got terminated. It's best to know how many days you've actually earned and take what you have than playing those games.
Plus no actual way to verify who's doing the homework assignments anyway as opposed to a live interview however imperfect that is.
On top of that, some sketchier startup founders opened up that they're starting to abuse this to get tasks done for free. So as a candidate why'd you allow yourself for this?
It's like the 'unlimited vacation' rubbish. Like yeah, people area actually afraid of taking vacations or they take too much and got terminated. It's best to know how many days you've actually earned and take what you have than playing those games.
Plus no actual way to verify who's doing the homework assignments anyway as opposed to a live interview however imperfect that is.
On top of that, some sketchier startup founders opened up that they're starting to abuse this to get tasks done for free. So as a candidate why'd you allow yourself for this?
My biggest problem with homework assignments is that they measure how much time you're able to dedicate to the assignment more than anything else.
Even with disclaimers like "limit yourself to x hours" or "this shouldn't take more than x hours", some candidates will still spend way more time than that on it.
Employers end up comparing assignments with 200%+ of the "expected" time spent versus people who actually adhered to the timebox. If you're someone who can only dedicate 3 hours in total, whether or not you're in the running might depend on how many other candidates can spend 10+ for perfection or going the extra mile.
Even with disclaimers like "limit yourself to x hours" or "this shouldn't take more than x hours", some candidates will still spend way more time than that on it.
Employers end up comparing assignments with 200%+ of the "expected" time spent versus people who actually adhered to the timebox. If you're someone who can only dedicate 3 hours in total, whether or not you're in the running might depend on how many other candidates can spend 10+ for perfection or going the extra mile.
I’m fine with homework assignments as long as they’re paid. I was given a task to implement a new feature for an interview to the tune of $300. I didn’t get the job, but I got paid, and I have held the company in high esteem ever since.
Candidates who don't have a portfolio with code I can look at: hope you like homework.
I don't like asking for unpaid labor, but I also won't risk my team blowing hours interviewing someone who has no chance of being successful here.
I don't like asking for unpaid labor, but I also won't risk my team blowing hours interviewing someone who has no chance of being successful here.
[deleted]
Good luck getting a good engineer
Then pay them. Make an honest calculation of what it's worth to you, and if you can give them something below that number that makes the candidate happy then everyone wins. If it saves you time (money) then share the wealth.
So candidates who have worked at other companies which have internal source control, you simple think they've never coded before since it's not somewhere you can see? Or you expect that they should be coding at home after having coded all day at the job they have?
Strange, the companies I've talked with send the homework out before even looking at my portfolio.
Portfolio of what? I'm not a graphic designer. I'd love to be able to save great code that I've written over the years. But it's all covered by license agreements, NDA's, security clearance, etc. So unless you're exclusively looking at amateur projects or open source developers, that's not a good business plan.
Right. All my best code (and worst, of course) is owned by my employer and former employers, and is usually exclusively licensed to their customers.
I tend not to code in my off hours any more, because I have different interests now, that require the expenditure of leisure time to enjoy. If I do, it is to solve an immediate need or as a side-project to make money directly, rather than to maybe get another job in the future.
If you want my portfolio, I want to browse your defects database and code repository before we interview.
I tend not to code in my off hours any more, because I have different interests now, that require the expenditure of leisure time to enjoy. If I do, it is to solve an immediate need or as a side-project to make money directly, rather than to maybe get another job in the future.
If you want my portfolio, I want to browse your defects database and code repository before we interview.
No matter what interview process you use to filter out candidates, people will be upset. I actually don't mind doing white board interviews because I find that the pressure is less than peak pressure at an actual job and I don't have to deal with minor API issues.
But I like the idea of homework because you don't need to find an excuse to take a day off from work, especially if you are interviewing at multiple companies.
But I like the idea of homework because you don't need to find an excuse to take a day off from work, especially if you are interviewing at multiple companies.
I have a four year old. I research a company, try to determine what tools they use and architecture they might be employing. I research what people are paid there. If requiring a move, I do research on the location. This takes lots of time. The more of my time that is taken up, the less likely I am to bother. The position of the company may well be they aren't interested in someone who'll not keep jumping through more hoops and if that's their position, then it's fine. I likely don't want to work there. I'd likely be happier at a company that respects my time.
I can totally envision recruiters spamming candidates with the take-home exercises regardless of what the employers intended when drafting them up, in the interests of keeping a full queue of candidates+results on hand.
That's unfortunate, because I strongly prefer the take-home approach over in-person whiteboard exercises. Recruiters are often sleazy, that's really the crux of the problem IMHO.
Personally, I've always had a portfolio free software projects to point them at for review before any in-person interactions take place. I think that's probably the best defense for candidates in this scenario.
That's unfortunate, because I strongly prefer the take-home approach over in-person whiteboard exercises. Recruiters are often sleazy, that's really the crux of the problem IMHO.
Personally, I've always had a portfolio free software projects to point them at for review before any in-person interactions take place. I think that's probably the best defense for candidates in this scenario.
> And that's the problem: it's free. Interviews have a nice limiting function; if it's a waste of the candidate's time, then it's a waste of the company's time. Not so with homework assignments.
The company I work at's primary screener is homework, and it takes us a ton of time and effort to grade homeworks, this argument does not make any sense.
https://adhocteam.us/2018/02/26/why-we-use-homework-to-recru...
The company I work at's primary screener is homework, and it takes us a ton of time and effort to grade homeworks, this argument does not make any sense.
https://adhocteam.us/2018/02/26/why-we-use-homework-to-recru...
> "Have a high "pass" rate. If 90+% of candidates aren't progressing past the homework, you might have an abuse problem. In an abuse problem, companies are giving homework to candidates who are unlikely to make it. Figure out why you're giving too many poor fits homework, or figure out why good fits aren't doing well."
That sounds crazy to me. Both from an employer and employee standpoint... If that's the case, it's a waste of time. Why have a test that almost everyone passes?
I've given homework like this before and our pass rate was about 40%.
That sounds crazy to me. Both from an employer and employee standpoint... If that's the case, it's a waste of time. Why have a test that almost everyone passes?
I've given homework like this before and our pass rate was about 40%.
While the post makes a few good points, the underlying proposition is flawed: homework assignments are not abuse. The candidate can refuse to do the assignment if they would like. There is no forcing function on the work that would make it abuse.
In general, I'm in favor of any interview process that ensures the best people get the job. From what I've seen, homework assignments increase the likelihood the best person gets the job instead of the person who is best at interviewing. While it does take time on behalf of candidates, I'm not sure there is a better way.
In general, I'm in favor of any interview process that ensures the best people get the job. From what I've seen, homework assignments increase the likelihood the best person gets the job instead of the person who is best at interviewing. While it does take time on behalf of candidates, I'm not sure there is a better way.
I was recruited by a large travel company that advises people on trips. They sent me a questionnaire beforehand and asked that I send them my answers. Being earnest and naive, I spent a couple of hours writing a bunch of short essays as answers. When I arrived for the interview, nobody had even read them. Needless to say, each time I've been re-recruited by that company in the intervening years, I've declined. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
What sort of questions were they? Technical? Personal?
I have only had one experience with a "homework assignment" and I liked it. But the end of the process was coding during the in-person interview, so doing well on the homework availed nothing. It seemed like a disconnect in the process.
In looking for an employer, I think I might like to filter out anyone who particularly dislikes or does not value homework and/or Fermi problems.
In looking for an employer, I think I might like to filter out anyone who particularly dislikes or does not value homework and/or Fermi problems.
The only rule I think I have is I won't do any test or assignment off an email invite.
Qualify me a little, then a personal invitation for a test/homework can be considered.
But sometimes it seems like you send in a resumes and the response to a resume submission (even if a human looks at it) is to send you to a test.
To that, "no".
Qualify me a little, then a personal invitation for a test/homework can be considered.
But sometimes it seems like you send in a resumes and the response to a resume submission (even if a human looks at it) is to send you to a test.
To that, "no".
One thing I don't like about homeworks is the useless things they ask sometimes. For example, I had to sort a table after all the columns in the table. Guess what? if I can sort it after one column, I know how to sort it after any other column. It just showed that they didn't care about my time.
Recently had a place give me a "homework assignment," but with a 2 hour deadline and a "feature request," but with no really concrete completion criteria, just to see how far you get in that much time. I preferred this to most other types of interviews that I've done.
I'm 100% more willing to do a take-home coding exercise than sit for grueling whiteboard problems. Preparing for whiteboard problems takes prep time at home too, in fact a lot more so. So homework assignments actually save time.
[deleted]
Both extremes are bad. Yes the interview process is broken but no I won't spend a lot of time if I'm not paid. If it's just a small assignment then that's fine.
this whole homework / whiteboard discussion is disturbing, how about do a good interview, prepare, and target the individual your speaking with, ask specific questions, not blanket questions pulled out of a "how to interview" book, and then send em home with an assignment or two....
if you cannot work through asking someone detailed questions, to find out how they operate and solve problems, if you cannot formulate words to ask me the right questions... do i want to work for you???
if you cannot work through asking someone detailed questions, to find out how they operate and solve problems, if you cannot formulate words to ask me the right questions... do i want to work for you???
I had homework for two engineer roles, ironically both in Santa Monica.
Then I was ghosted afterwards. They weren't complicated. Simple Git/bash, and I did it in about 3-4 hours.
I won't do it again.
Then I was ghosted afterwards. They weren't complicated. Simple Git/bash, and I did it in about 3-4 hours.
I won't do it again.
If they pay you for that task I don't see why this could be bad
This is a great example of skin in the game affecting behavior.
If the task is paid, I don't see anything bad about it.
There was a SF startup with an obnoxious, high-density open-floorplan (ie a narrow table down a long corridor like a bad library with the panopticon of managers watching) that tried this bullshit with me. They didn't even look at it, a sample of how Puppet works. They asked about MySQL architectures for scaling reads, writes, HA and backups, I provided clear answers to all of them while they made all sorts of snide, unprofessional remarks that weren't based in facts. Overall, they were incredibly rude, dismissive, inhuman, self-aggrandizing and arrogant muppets. They even had the gaul to call me up for another interview later after previously literally pushing me out the door. As I went independent, I let their HR and recruiter know with some actionable feedback: "Please convey this message to (shall go nameless hiring manager): 'Fuck you. (middle finger). Please go fuck yourself.'" They deserved chewing-out but they weren't worth my time.
Why not?
I love paid homework in the range of $300-$500 USD/ for a day or 2 of work.
I'm all against unpaid homework (f u pay me) - but paid home work is great.
What's not to like?
I love paid homework in the range of $300-$500 USD/ for a day or 2 of work.
I'm all against unpaid homework (f u pay me) - but paid home work is great.
What's not to like?
Personally I like homework, because it allows me to show my strengths (actually writing code that is solid) without being "under the gun" in terms of interview pressures. I love being able to discuss the code I wrote and talk about areas it can be expanded and improved, and why certain decisions were made. In my mind, that process is closer to the job I'm often interviewing for than questions like "explain why Bellman-Ford uses v-1 relaxations"