| OP here. This is great, Peter, thank you for this perspective! If you walked away with the impression that there were gotchas, then we have failed. While we do have specific criteria we're looking for (as we're trying to make the grading of each work sample as objective and consistent as possible), I wouldn't call those items "gotchas". It's also not the type of thing where if you miss one small item, you're disqualified. The grading allows for several missed items and is only looking for some total of all allowed points (across 33 different criteria). So while some of the items you didn't get credit for might have appeared trivial, or like a gotcha, there should be enough allowance in the process to not let one or two misses scuttle the whole effort. > Perfect candidates do not exist; just as perfect humans do not exist. Great test takers do exist though. Personally, I have never correlated good test takers with good employees or good programmers We are totally with you re: perfect candidates. Work samples are only one part of the hiring process after all, and are meant to ensure some base level of technical ability. Others parts of the process, such as our structured interviews, are meant to flesh out some of the nuances I believe you're referring to here. We're not looking for a perfect candidate, but we are looking to understand what makes up each candidate to know if their strengths are a fit for Spreedly and if we can live with the weaknesses (and vice versa for the candidate evaluating Spreedly!). We really do appreciate your effort, both in writing up your thoughts here, and in applying in the first place. This is how we get better at this kinda of thing! |
Oh, and remember... next Friday... is Hawaiian shirt day. So, you know, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.