[hashkb]

No, no, no. They have the job, you want it. That email comes across so arrogant that I would expect even the newest hiring manager to laugh and delete.

Without even addressing the sour grapes attitude about coding interviews, the sheer arrogance with which you try to dictate someone else's process is a red flag in the first place. That, plus the fact that you're refusing to do what they want, is really bad for your chances of being hired.

[chasingthewind]

His reply was gracious and well thought out. I didn't get a vibe of arrogance or sour grapes myself. The job hunt is a mutual process...employers are looking at candidates and candidates are looking at employers. If an employer doesn't have a process that fits a candidate's personality and values then it's better for both sides to simply move on. I think this response does an admirable job of beginning that conversation.

[vorpalhex]

I've pushed against tests like this before, especially "sample projects".

My experience doing so falls into exactly two categories:

+ Companies that get very upset (one even had the CEO email me cursing me out after I said I wasn't going to remake a twitter API client considering I had a github full of API clients including one for twitter already!)

+ Companies that go "Oh, actually yeah, that seems to make sense. Can you highlight a few repos you'd prefer to show us, or do you mind doing some whiteboarding with us?"

You never, ever, want to work for the first category. The first category of companies are the same people who usually expect you to work a lot of additional hours for free, have poor internal practices at least around work/life balance, and generally treat their engineers like code monkeys instead of people.

So, I usually push back against these tests because it's very revealing to do. Even if you end up caving, it's important to test the companies response to a bit of polite push back.

[chrisrhoden]

> They have the job, you want it.

By definition, if they have a job, they want to fill it with a qualified person. Jobs aren't (usually) charities to the person working.

[hashkb]

Qualified is something they've defined as "passes this interview process" so I don't think trying to get out of it will be a "yes" too often.

[sdoering]

> They have the job, you want it. Are you sure? If they have shitty processes and use shitty tools to evaluate the quality of an applicant - I am not sure, that they have the job someone wants.

This isn't a one way street. As an employer I want the best possible candidate. I want someone who can think on their feet and is able to say no to unreasonable demands. I want someone that brings his own perspective to the table.

If I want a code monkey - I would advertise for one.

And as an employee I want an employer who values my brain and my problem solving ability in complex and ever changing environments more then arbitrarily idiotic coding tests (or in my case analytics problems removed from anything resembling real world situations).

I am glad to be working at a place that enables me to have both (as a colleague sitting in talks with applicants and being an employee).

[zrail]

It doesn’t seem arrogant to me. It reads as someone who is confident in their abilities and is unwilling to spend two hours in an artificial environment when they have a wealth of experience on offer already. OP even says they’d like to do their thing in addition to HackerRank if that is an absolute requirement.

Helpful hint: there are no absolute requirements in hiring, just various levels of filters than can be overridden at will.

[maxaf]

I agree that the arrogance is misplaced, and will be lost on the HR peon whose job it is to send out HackerRank tests to warm leads.

On the other hand, it's rare for coders to be so desperate that they'll jump at absolutely any and every job opportunity. The balancne of power has long tipped in our favor.

[rainforest]

I think it depends, some employers might appreciate being showed evidence that the process they've decided on isn't suitable for reasons they were unable to see.

[hashkb]

I've been on a few hiring panels and designed a few interviews in my day. I've never met anyone who likes being told their interview is broken. Especially not from a candidate (who failed / is refusing to do it.)

[angelsl]

Sounds like arrogance... on the part of the interviewer.

[sdoering]

I would hire them. They show me, that they think beyond their current task and are able to see the bigger picture.

Or at least I would consider hiring them if the rest does fit (culture and other such squishy interpersonal things).

[fouc]

Flip it around.

He has the skills, they want his skills. They are coming to him in the hopes that they're a good fit and that their rewards are enticing enough.

He obviously doesn't need to worry about being hired by ABC.. the only reason he didn't outright reject their test and proposed an alternative is because he thinks it's an interesting company or product.

[nukeop]

Look at it in another way - they want somebody to work for them, you can provide this service. It's a business agreement, not some mercifully offered gift. Both sides want something from the other. The sooner we stop thinking about jobs in terms of servitude, the better off we'll all be as employees.