[lj3]

> I've interviewed many people who have an impressive resume and can talk the talk, yet can't even do Fizzbuzz.

And I've interviewed many people who can do fizzbuzz because they studied for it (CTCI) and wind up being terrible programmers.

The end result? Technical interviews are, at best, a completely random hiring signal. You'd be better off flipping a coin. It's better to be lucky than good, so why not use luck as a selection criteria?

[jakewins]

But, if you aren't hiring a developer specifically to implement fizzbuzz for you, why are you giving them that as a problem to solve?

Hiring someone to work on a Flask REST API? Make them add a REST endpoint to a little flask app. Hiring someone to do CSS? Make them style a form. Hiring someone to build a database? Make them safely write to disk.

This is far from random - it's been almost twenty years since Schmidt and Hunter showed that a work sample is one of the best predictors of future performance, 24%, vs 3% for unstructured interviewing.

http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...

[lj3]

I couldn't agree more. The problem with most work sample tests is the length and the format. Most are too long and they have you start with nothing. Adding a rest endpoint to a little flask app is perfect.

It's a shame nobody actually does this kind of work sample test. And thanks for that study. It'll make for some nice ammunition. :)