[BlackjackCF]

I actually really like the way that my company does software interviews. We do an initial resume check and screener phone call. After that, we send prospectives a take-home code sample that they can work on. The problems are very small and well-scoped and they can take as long as they want to work on it.

We do an initial code review. If we have notes for improvement, we give the candidate feedback and ask if they'd like to do one more pass at it. If they don't want to, but we think that the general thinking and instincts behind the logic is sound, we bring them in for an in-person where we ask them to go over their code review on where the pitfalls are and where they think they could potentially improve.

That gives us the most realistic sense of how well a candidate is going to do at the company, since this is essentially our process.

[arenaninja]

I like that it's transparent, and I've gone through a similar enough process several times, but as much as it gives your company a realistic sense of future performance, I think it's unfair to candidates. One job made me do this with two onsite interviews and then I waited three weeks to hear back. They were comparison shopping during that time, but as a candidate it was stressful.