[gingerrr]

Using a coding test as the initial barrier to even a phone screen is what I have a severe problem with.

I think coding tests absolutely have their place - after a 30m high-level skillcheck over the phone, let's ask for a brief 30-45m timed code challenge to rule out the applicants who were effective enough bullshitters to clear the phone screen.

But I too have seen this trend that GP calls out re: "auditions" to even make it into the actual audition process, and FWIW it has not hurt me one whit to spend the last few years refusing to complete a code challenge as a prerequisite to anything but an in-person technical interview.

The only way it would hurt you is if the company in question is one you know you want to work for - and I'd consider an up-front code challenge for a few big names out there - but in most cases I simply write back and let the recruiter know my policy.

It's not like they're going to stop sending you leads, if you're a good candidate.

edit: grammar

[frcknfrckn]

But look at it from the company's point of view - why would they invest time in a 30-minute skill check interview for every applicant if they can just as easily run the code challenge up front and eliminate a large proportion of the unsuitable applicants?

[p4wnc6]

The problem is that you can't "just as easily" run the code test. The code test is unreliable -- bad developers who overfit their knowledge to trivia make it through. The code test also causes the really good developers to simply reject you, so you don't even get a chance to hire them, or even find out who they are.

You're basically saying you want to lop off the bottom 60% of an imagined Normal distribution. Except you're really only lopping off some of the bottom 60%, and some fraction of that bottom 60% gets through, and you're paying the cost of also lopping off the top 5% who think you're a joke of an employer for being way too worried about the costs for you to more substantively evaluate those bottom 60% folks -- especially since you, as an employer, are probably in the bottom 60% of employers anyway, yet are cargo culting to try to act like you only hire the top 0.000001% or something.

You get what you pay for. If you go cheap on candidate evaluation (e.g. lazy commodity HackerRank), you get the McDonald's version of a developer, all while acting like you're being extremely selective.

[frcknfrckn]

Gonna have to disagree on that one. If some fraction of that bottom 60% gets through, that's perfectly fine - this is only the first step after all, and there are real interviews still to come.

And if this mystical top 5% can't spare the ten minutes to run through what is essentially an interviewing captcha - for a job they were obviously interested in enough to apply for in the first place - then how do I know they won't consider themselves too good to do their actual work if I do end up hiring then? I'm happy to hire the next 5% down the list of it means they have a good attitude and a willingness to do their job.

And what's the alternative? I waste my team's time setting up screening phone interviews for every halfway decent resume that comes down the pipe? With the number of applications that we get, we'd be losing days of time every time we look to hire, before we even got to the actual interviewing.

[sheepmullet]

> And if this mystical top 5% can't spare the ten minutes to run through what is essentially an interviewing captcha

Every coding test I've been asked to take is a 2-5 hour job. I'll do it for a company I really want to work for... But not for a "maybe".

E.g. If I know you are paying 25% over market then 5 hours becomes worth it.

Now 10 minutes? I can spend 10 minutes on a maybe.

[vonmoltke]

If I knew what your test was going in it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'm getting your 15-minute competency screen or, say, Virtu's 3-hour borderline impossible beating until I actually log in to take it. Since the latter seems to be more common than the former, it pushes me to reject you up-front unless I am desperate.

[gingerrr]

You said this so much better than I did. Thank you!

[gingerrr]

I understand the reasons why the company would choose to do it. My argument is that they are fixing the wrong problem - and to be honest, could likely be making it worse.

If so many unqualified candidates are making it to the phone screen (which should happen after they've been resume-sorted and google searched), it's an indicator that something at the leading edge of the candidate pipeline is broken.

Asking their potential candidates to make up for their failure is not only asinine but probably locks them into a cycle of mediocrity - highly-skilled engineers are getting more leads than they care to deal with already, they're not likely to take the time to do that upfront work unless there's a very compelling draw. You know who will? Untrained devs looking for a first job.

tl;dr - the candidates that would do unpaid work for the chance of an interview, and the highly-skilled, well-sought-after engineers I'd like to hire for my team, are likely two circles without any overlap unless I have some major draw working in my favor - like signing bonus, or being a Google.

edit: accidentally a word

[Retra]

Why would a company do anything that benefits its employees?