[tptacek]

Again: the rubric is defined up front. You can actually lose points for doing too much.

I understand that some people are concerned that they're competing with candidates who will put in 12 hours to do what they should be doing in 4. But that's not their problem. Their problem as a professional is to evaluate whether they can do the challenge in 4 hours; that's the expectation the job is setting.

It is perfectly reasonable for someone to look at the hiring process we're running and say "no, this communicates to me that this job wouldn't be a good fit for me". That's a good outcome! Most jobs aren't a good fit for most people; that's the whole challenge of hiring.

[masfuerte]

Imagine I'm an employer who wants to adopt this system. How can I distinguish the candidate who spent four hours from the candidate who spent twelve?

[tptacek]

If you care, you enforce a time limit or have the work sample done on site. We simply don't care.

[masfuerte]

Thanks for clearing that up. So if you employ someone who's actually really slow then I guess you just fire them?

I'm based in the UK, where firing people is harder, so this wouldn't fly. That said, I know interviews are basically useless so I would like something better.

[tptacek]

I have no idea. It's never happened.