One thing I’d add is that live coding exercises can vary widely in quality.
> If you solve the problem, you’re scored highly. If you don’t, you’re scored poorly.
In my own opinion, this is a terrible way to look at these problems, though many people do use this metric. This is further emphasized by HackerRank-style exercises where you have to pass all test cases. This is robotic and not empathic at all.
A more fluid and dynamic approach that focuses on the candidate’s approach, ability to clarify, and problem solving, even if the correct answer isn’t reached, can still give valuable signals
Disclaimer: I work and give interviews at a large tech co that uses exercises.
I wonder if there is any value in having a few candidates do a group project. Would probably be a mess but might be informative, you could at least identify the bullies and dickheads pretty quickly.
I could imagine that this would be the worst way to evaluate candidates I've ever heard, especially if not everyone got hired. I think this would only be an appropriate evaluation metric if your end product were actually a reality TV show focusing on this process.
Maybe do it Survivor style, have 12 candidates/new grads start, give them the goal of producing an MVP CRUD app, and start voting people out of the scrum after a couple of days. Winner gets a 6 month contract to hire, 3 people have their careers ruined, and the rest bump around the valley for a few years before moving back to wherever the hell they came from. The memes that come out of this alone could make this show a valuable cultural contribution.
+1. The variation between companies is part of the problem, IMO. When a company gives me a coding test, I don't know what will happen next. I don't know if I devote my time to a coding test if it will result in either a pass/fail examination (meaning instant rejection, no follow up) or a live post-discussion to talk about my mistakes or methods.
I'm currently interviewing, and I have to say I've taken enough pass/fail coding tests to start to shy away from coding tests, especially if they don't tell me what to expect.
What is wrong approach and is good approach? I agree that ability to explain and clarify matter in many positions and are real thing. But I never understood what is meant by "approach".
This is a popular sentiment but it’s still false. A hiring committee isn’t going to pass you if you don’t finish the problem (ideally multiple problems) optimally.
I am more looking into how a candidate thinks than if they get the problem correct.
It is more telling when someone is able to logically work through a problem they never seen before even if it isn't optimal or even correct.
I am more skeptical of those who blow through a hard problem getting the optimal solution right away. It likely means they memorized it or had lots of practice on such type of problems. I don't hold it against them, but often have to throw in some curve ball follow ups to see if they really know there stuff.
> If you solve the problem, you’re scored highly. If you don’t, you’re scored poorly.
In my own opinion, this is a terrible way to look at these problems, though many people do use this metric. This is further emphasized by HackerRank-style exercises where you have to pass all test cases. This is robotic and not empathic at all.
A more fluid and dynamic approach that focuses on the candidate’s approach, ability to clarify, and problem solving, even if the correct answer isn’t reached, can still give valuable signals
Disclaimer: I work and give interviews at a large tech co that uses exercises.