[lbriner]

These debates have been done to death and mostly I also think that the article is a fairly typical strawman argument. Take the worst way to do a live coding test, point out the problems and then dismiss the whole idea.

What else are we supposed to do? Take the fact that you can talk a good game as enough of a signal to invest 10s of 1000s? Assume that everyone with 20 years experience is as good as everyone else?

The problem is that there are no reliable signals. Most Developers I have interviewed have a massively inaccurate ability to judge their own ability (in both directions). I've lost count of the number of times candidates have rpomised that they can just learn whatever they don't already know and haven't been able to do it to any degree.

Qualifications are meaningful in some contexts more than others but most people in the UK don't have comp-sci qualifications.

So yes, I will use various coding exercises because depending on the level, it shouldn't phase someone to be given something quite simple and to see how they approach it (do they write tests first? Ask some good scope questions? Explain why they've done something the way they did?)

I have failed one of these tests in the past thinking I was a good Developer (I am!) but I don't blame the test or the process, I realised that my approach was haphazard and not an objective good look to an Interviewer so it was actually helpful.

[kahrl]

These interviewees want: "Trust me bro. I'M JUST A BAD TEST TAKER. I can't show my awesome skills to you right now because I'm terrified and I'm panicking. Just give me a chance, even though I've shown you nothing."

Interviewer: "Gosh darn it, you're hired!!"