|
|
|
|
|
|
by phunehehe0
3518 days ago
|
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. I have been on both sides. Take homes are awesome when used correctly. They shouldn't be used for a candidate with a relevant opensource profile. In that case, you can already assert that they have the technical skills. You can ask them about their projects to make sure it's their work if you want. Personally I'd go straight to communication skills and cultural fit. For a candidate without much opensource contributions, take homes help both sides: - Candidates get the chance to prove that they are smart and fast learners (especially if you want to get into a slightly different area)
- Companies don't have to worry about candidates who can't do fizzbuzz
- Neither side have to do the horrid live coding (yeah, nobody likes that, even the interviewer) The awkward thing for me is to deal with candidates who seem to be good at _something else_ (that is not a good approximation of the work at hand). I usually ask them why they want the position. Usually it's just that they "want to get into a slightly different area" and fortunately most agree that a take home is fair. |
|
|
Trying to get companies to even talk to me about positions that are not like whatever I am currently doing is like pulling teeth. I used to work in real-time embedded systems, signal processing specifically. I shifted to NLP and ML for reasons, but one of them was not "I'm tired of/can't hack embedded and want to try something else". I would love for companies to give me take-homes to prove I can still do embedded. Instead they just ignore me.