[elbear]

Maybe it works for them, but I don't find any motivation to work on test project that exist only for their own sake. I mean, if the test project is actually a part of the real project that I would be working, then that's okay. But to build something with made up requirements puts me off.

[shiftb]

The challenges are all real projects that we've already built (and thus have a baseline for).

We don't agree with brainteaser interviews. Having someone build a made up project would be just as bad as a brainteaser. We wouldn't do that to a candidate.

[patmcc]

So you believe in 8 hours * 99 applications (792 hours total - 4 months of work) of wasted time (not even your time) per hire?

[shiftb]

It is a lot less time than you calculated. We stop the process any time they don't pass and give them specific feedback on why. Usually, this is during the initial phone call/basic test. Most candidates do 30 minutes at most, which seems very reasonable when applying for a position.

[rhizome]

What's the difference between a brainteaser and a problem you've already solved?

[shiftb]

That's a good question. I hope this example gives some clarity to what I meant:

* Worthless Brainteaser: How many golfballs will fit in this Ford?

* Real-world Problem: Let's do cohort analysis on our users and see how our business is doing.

Part of the goal is also a consistent rubric for evaluating candidates.

In the past, we've tried giving every candidate a new problem to solve. It's not fair to them. When each problem is a brand new project it's difficult to evaluate a candidate objectively and consistently.

[Iftheshoefits]

Their problems are special and important.