| >Honestly, we haven't had many issues with it, so I don't know that I could agree it's terrible. If it works for you, then it works for you. The one thing I know for sure is that peer reviewed studies over the last 50 years show that work sample tests are the absolute most predictive tests you can perform. If what you're doing is as close to a real work sample as you can reasonably get, then you're probably doing better than 95% of companies. And from your description of your process it sounds like you are. >It seems a lot simpler than and just as effective as doing a pair programming event where you have to make sure that both people have not seen the particular task before, which basically means the interview will have to be completely customized for each candidate. The pair programming isn't necessarily essential in my opinion. The essential part is eliminating the artificial adversarial and timeboxed nature of the traditional whiteboard interview. >it means it's pretty hard now to compare two different candidates. That's actually a pretty key insight. The practice that many companies have of allowing interviewing engineers to use any problems they want is completely opposed to this. |