[poulsbohemian]

I think my favorite story of code tests was where one interviewer presented the test, gave me 24 hours to complete it, and I was then supposed to be "graded" by second team member. The second guy obviously didn't understand the requirements of the coding test (despite presumably receiving the same written instructions I received), so rejected me outright. Which I guess kinda gets to my thinking on coding tests, where you often learn a lot about companies by the crappy "tests" they think have merit.

I interviewed hundreds of technical people in my career, across dev, test, and ops skill sets. I saw limited correlation between tests and aptitude. If you talk to someone about a project they've done, you know pretty quickly:

1) Can they communicate technical ideas? 2) Can I develop a rapport with this person and work together? 3) Do they understand what they built? Can they talk about tradeoffs they made? Did they learn anything from the experience?

A fizz buzz test isn't a terrible idea, but you also have to have an interviewer that understands how to administer it within the wider context of the interview. If the interviewer themselves doesn't understand it, they aren't qualified to actually administer it.