[cozuya]

Two take home "challenges" I've done in the recent past stand out for me:

1) I spent 6 hours on it. I didn't do some of the "optional" parts (unit tests specifically) because I felt like 6 hours was enough to "show I can program" i.e. what it was supposed to do worked. Result: I got grilled over why the optional parts weren't there and didn't get an offer.

2) I spent 15 hours on it. I did everything I could think of on it including 50ish unit tests and more than what was asked for. Result: I got and accepted the job. (note: I had laid out my salary requirements before hand).

Is this "great"? I have an active github/open source profile. To me in both cases they basically wanted to waste my time and mental effort, and see if I would do it. That.. can't be ideal.

[busterarm]

It's a good test to see if you'll balk at doing the kinds of shit they're going to throw at you once you're hired.

Oh, you had dinner plans tonight? You want to see your kids before they go to bed? Sorry, our engineering team generally works 11am-8pm. You need to be in the office.

[janephilipps]

These are good data points. I think the amount of time you should spend often depends on where you are in your career.

I know many companies don't explicitly require tests, but for them if a candidate submits a take-home challenge without them, its an automatic rejection. Do you think that if you had included tests in that first challenge that you would have gotten an offer?

[qudat]

Did either interview time lock the challenges?