[markbnj]

I absolutely agree with this. Moreover, this basic approach of giving the candidate a reasonable set of requirements, a quiet space, and as much time as necessary is hands-down the best way I can think of to asses competency. It's how I was assessed by a company at which I just accepted a SRE position. There was a homework project, a few "personality" interviews, and then a work day for which I was compensated. I was stressed out with performance anxiety leading up to this naturally, but it ended up being a blast.

I was looking for a couple of months before I went through the process with my current employer, and some of the experiences were just horrible: one company put me through 7 interviews with a single engineer each time, lasting 30-45 minutes, and then brushed me off with a two sentence email. Another wanted me to design an algorithm in 20 minutes while they watched via screen share, and if I couldn't do it in 20 minutes I wasn't good enough for them. Several asked me to take timed tests with prominent counters flashing in the corner. It's just stupid.

So I think personally we should support employers who understand how software is made, and are willing to create the right conditions for you to really practice your craft, and then judge what you've made and how you interacted with potential team mates.