|
I'm surprised this seemed to be voted down. I've been a hiring manager for over 30 years, and I never do "technical tests" -- no take-home, no live coding, none of it. I have a map of topics and questions, and I get the candidate chatting about their past projects, their approach, and what they liked/disliked about past projects and various technology they've used. It takes a maximum of one hour and usually close to about thirty minutes to make a yes/no decision on a candidate (sometimes it only takes ten minutes to make a no decision, and then it's a matter of trying to politely end the interview). I've interviewed hundreds of candidates this way over the years, and everyone I've hired has been capable of doing the job. Not once have I ever had to let someone go for lack of technical ability. Part of the problem is that we don't train people how to conduct interviews, and another part is "this is how I was interviewed, so this is how I'm going to interview other candidates" -- pure inertia. As an industry, we really need to do better. As for the OP, _if_ I had been administering a vague take-home project that had a 1-week delivery deadline, and a candidate peppered me with Qs and then presented a full proposal for the project for approval, prior to working on it... I would have rejected them. But I'm pretty certain I would have decided to reject them in my regular 30-60 "chat" interview, and I would not have moved on to the take-home project and wasted their time like that. So, again, I fault the interviewer(s) for not being able to filter candidates efficiently. |