[properdine]

I conceptually like the idea of dropping coding screens, etc - but how do you objectively identify what you're looking for in a candidate without adding bias to the process?

I.e., at least with a coding question, you can set up objective criteria. If you ask someone about their work, it might be a good experience but you're also setting yourself up to bias towards people who talk/think like you.

[autarch]

If you really want to test someone's coding, let them do some coding in their own time with their own tools and send it to you. This isn't ideal, since it can be time consuming, but I think it's more humane than live coding in some weird environment.

[nawgz]

I would argue that using less of someone's time is strictly "more humane" than using more of someone's time, because an individual's reaction to a situation is... individual

[tfehring]

There's no reason an asynchronous coding assignment needs to be more time-intensive than a synchronous coding interview - that's the convention but it's not a necessary one. Lots of companies do 4 hours of technical interviews, it's not hard to come up with an effective programming assignment that takes less time than that.

[wiseowise]

This is subjective.

[autarch]

Maybe the best option is just to give people a choice.

[phendrenad2]

I think that staying employed as a software developer for 10+ years is a good indication of skill, far better than any random coding assignment.

Put another way, if someone has 10+ years of experience, in an ideal world there isn't much point in quizzing them on algorithms or giving them homework. They've done all of that before, passed, were promoted, etc. You can see that on their resume, and you can verify that with a few phonecalls.

Of course, in reality, you have to quiz everyone equally, and hire based on this objective metric, because even a whiff of non-objective hiring is dangerous.

[wiseowise]

> I think that staying employed as a software developer for 10+ years is a good indication of skill, far better than any random coding assignment.

As someone who has been doing interviews for as long as 2 years, wrong. I've seen at least 15 candidates that had 5-15 years of experience and we're complete shit. As in no redeemable qualities in terms of tech assignment.

[phendrenad2]

Survivorship bias, Goodhart's Law, etc.

[wiseowise]

?

[tester756]

>I think that staying employed as a software developer for 10+ years is a good indication of skill, far better than any random coding assignment.

I disagree.

Exp is nowhere close to being perfect proxy for skills

[kevinburke]

I describe an alternative set of objective criteria in the post

(I’ve also submitted code that solves the problem “perfectly” and been rejected, no idea)