[VirusNewbie]

As someone doing interviews now, I would actually prefer a 'bar' type test that employees can take every so often to show their technical skills.

It could have all kinds of algorithmic questions, system design, practical application building and whatever else. It would be administered in person to prevent cheating (as much as possible), and companies could choose which scores to pay attention to.

Meta doesn't find dynamic programming questions useful for hiring but likes all the other algo questions.

Stripe doesn't like algo questions but wants to see people bootstrap stuff. So let me just do that once (or per decade or what) so I can get over answering the same damn algorithm question at four different companies.

Conversely, this would save me from having to 'fail' the same type of DP questions I keep getting stumped on. Let's just save everyone time.

[CogitoCogito]

Or just hire fast and fire for fast. It’s too bad the US social net is so tied to jobs making that practically unviable. I would much prefer such a system to a long song and dance of any interviews.

[twox2]

Hire fast / fire fast has worked for some relatively lean teams that I've been on, but I can see it being hard to implement at mid-size and bigger companies where there's all kinds of red tape.

[giraffe_lady]

The real problem is still the moral one they indicated. If someone leaves a stable job where they perform adequately and you fire them from the new one, you've removed their source of income and probably healthcare. With no knowledge of who they're supporting or what resources they have access to, this could be a very damaging thing to do.

If you limit your hiring only to people whose resources can handle that risk, you're limiting your pool to only financially stable individuals who don't have eg a child or spouse with an expensive medical condition.

Morally treacherous territory either way in the absence of a trustworthy economic safety net that the US absolutely doesn't have.

[twox2]

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see how that's the employer's problem. This risk is ALWAYS there when taking on a new job. Fire fast doesn't really mean one week either, but it can be evident in the first 2-3 months if someone is a bad fit.

[vba616]

Temping is a thing that exists, doesn't it? Is it immoral because some people are stuck with commitments that preclude it?

[LorenPechtel]

I'd love that. Make the test broad, but companies *must* provide a filter for what they are interested in that is limited to seeing perhaps 30% of your score--they have to pick what's actually important to them, not "everything". You can see how you would score against what they want. (They put a link to the testing site's website that sends the filter as a parameter. If you're logged in this is resolved as a score and shows you where you're strong/weak against their criteria.)

A fair test by competent testers, blinded against most discrimination. Of course they would hate it--they can't pretend it's not age discrimination anymore.

[lin83]

Isn't that what certification is? COMPTIA etc?