|
|
|
|
|
|
by tamimio
557 days ago
|
|
|
I think a better option is to have a system in place where companies hire them for a month or so then after that period you choose whoever made a better impact. And before you say it will be costly, most companies can afford it, especially if it will lead to a better outcome. That way they get tested on the actual systems and not just some useless questions from the internet. |
|
|
If you're planning to have N candidates do this when you only have 1 position, you're disrupting the others' lifes so much. It's like one of those chef competition shows. You better pay these people at least 6 months salary to show up for this.
Plus, do you really have the supervisory system in place to have N new hires and evaluate their impact after 1 month. Do you have the work for them to do? Or are they all going to independently work on the same project?
I ask a useless question in interviews, but asking every candidate the same question lets me calibrate the candidates as well as improve how I present the question so we can get to the problem solving and programming skills I want to see. Some questions are worse than others, and I hope mine is less worse; I've had several people tell me they enjoyed working on my question, although I also had a candidate refuse to work on it and ask for another question (which I didn't have, and I was the last interview of the day, so I returned the balance of his time and walked him out)