[geofft]

I agree with your comment in general, but, I worry about the bias of "Bring your own laptop set up to be able to code and debug" - some perfectly qualified candidates don't have laptops. Some perfectly qualified candidates do have a laptop but don't code much at home, and the setup they're used to is their work machine or a school lab computer. We already have too much bias in favor of code-all-day-code-all-night candidates (e.g., looking for GitHub profiles) and I think requiring someone to bring their workspace might push this to the point where good candidates who happen not to code outside business hours wouldn't stand a chance. (There are lots of reasons for this that wouldn't impact how qualified you are, from "I have a family" to "My workplace is real stingy about open source, so I haven't bothered to set anything up for non-work coding".)

I'd be a lot more comfortable with "We have a machine set up for you, but you can also bring your laptop," as long as the machine is actually well set up and you don't fall into the implicit expectation that passing candidates will bring their laptop anyway. (Most of them will, in the end.)

[ChrisCinelli]

I did not write it for brevity.

Some people live on their company's computer and when they leave they do not have one.

Yes, I always add "there is a machine set up for you if you do not have one". That said the machine has a generic setup with most common editors but no plugins. But good engineers will probably have a script on a Github Gist or something like that will setup the machine as they want it.

In general, a candidate with their own setup will do better. I think this is one of the reason that big companies do not let people use their computer.

[geofft]

Yes, I figured you probably had a provision, just wanted to ask for the sake of people saying "This sounds like a good idea." I agree people with their own setup will have an edge, and that seems like a downside that you could argue is defensible. I just think that saying you have to have your own setup because we know people without their own setups won't pass is too far.

[mk89]

> I'd be a lot more comfortable with "We have a machine set up for you, but you can also bring your laptop,"

That's exactly how I do it. My goal is to assess the candidate's skills with realistic expectations, a whiteboard is a tool he or she can use, not the goal of my interview. If he can write code on a whiteboard and he doesn't know how to compile a program, it rings a bell.

[skookumchuck]

> some perfectly qualified candidates don't have laptops

So get one. You can get a good one from the pawn shop for $200. You can afford that if you're interviewing for a 6 figure job.

Edit: I'm not kidding. I've bought $200 laptops from the thrift store, usually for travel purposes so I don't worry about losing/breaking it.

[ilikehurdles]

When I was looking for work, my laptops setup was embarrassing. MacBook Pro with both a broken keyboard and misbehaving trackpad. I had to bring with me an external mechanical keyboard and trackpad. It worked out in the end but that could leave a bad impression with interviewers.

[skookumchuck]

It wouldn't bother me any. I'd just think you were thrifty, and were capable of working around problems to get things done.

[cellularmitosis]

Indeed, seeing a candidate bring a $250 ebay thinkpad running linux would impress me and be great ice breaker

[geofft]

How do you afford $200 if you're interviewing for a six-figure job but don't yet have a six-figure job? Personal loan?

(Also, that doesn't address the question of getting a working decent setup, if you're not otherwise using it.)

[skookumchuck]

If I need to advise someone how to come up with $200, he isn't capable of a 6 figure job. If I have to hold someone's hand to set up programming tools on a laptop, he isn't capable of a 6 figure programming job.

[geofft]

Interesting - why is that? Have you hired such people and found them incapable of doing the work?

[skookumchuck]

You're just trolling.

[geofft]

So you have no actual explanation for your hiring practices, just deep-seated biases that happen to correlate with bias against protected classes but isn't nominally actually against protected classes. Makes sense—that makes you well-qualified to be an interviewer for many tech companies.