|
|
|
|
|
|
by AchieveLife
2406 days ago
|
|
|
What makes this different from the other solutions out there? I'm very concerned about the "test." Coding tests are unprofessional IMO. They demand one sided value and reduce the candidate pool diversity to only those who are willing to tolerate unfair exchanges/relationships. What I am gathering from this is that hiring as it should be involves removing the majority of human contact, test for skills, and blast into public digital channels. There are so many other competitors out there that are actually innovating with DISCOVERY tools not TEST tools. |
|
|
For example, I received a great coding test from Vertica, a database company. Their test was a 2-hour timed exercise involving improving a ~200 LoC data querying program. This is nicer for the following reasons:
- It doesn't require me to bootcamp with LeetCode because you have a bunch of people out there who train and "overperform" on such coding Qs.
- It's specific enough to the domain but still fairly generic. The test covers techniques covered in a standard intro sequence.
- It's timed, so it doesn't waste time like most take-home assessments.
- It's predictive power of t skiechnical ability is better (my opinion). People like to say that such tests don't test enough for problem solving. However, if you are missing 6 months-1 year worth of domain knowledge, you won't be able to contribute for a while no matter how good your problem solving ability is. An average candidate stays for <<10 years so you want the person who can start contributing sooner even if they have a lower "peak" potential. (Also, I believe generic problem solving is kinda BS. I was good at math and coding contests years ago, but now I would consider myself to be an average interviewer. Even though I'm an good problem-solver for certain systems problems, I don't consider myself one for ML ones or people-heavy problems.)
To summarize, I would love to see better tests than the ones we have now and think there's clear room to improve.