Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?
Short version: I had an experience with a recruiter that I think was not fair, due to how much time was spent responding to emails and calls, and then being presented with a test. Where's the line to asking to do tests?
Long version:
A few times I get in contact by a company for a job interview after they see my profile online. They ask me to do one of these hackerrank or leetcode tests. I've done a few. Sometimes it goes good and sometimes it goes bad. But the annoying part is that if the result is bad I just get dismissed without any feedback. Once, a few years back, I even got dismissed after I coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code (this makes it sound like I did a shitty job, but others were impressed with what I did... so how can I know what went wrong?). This bothers me and I'd like to ask about it.
Recently I was contacted by this company, whose got my 2 page CV with all my accomplishments and skills. She got my stack overflow account + my git page + a public github repository for a project for which I've been working for over a year + binary program for a project that I wrote from scratch + website that I designed for the last project and a few other things with that. All that + a 1 hour discussion on the phone about my work and my history with the recruiter.
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV. But I also responded to that email, which took me like 45 minutes to write.
After all that, she emails me and tells me that I have to do 60-90 minute test with one of these random coding websites. At this point, I honestly internally snapped.
This is because after all this time I spent with this recruiter, and all the information and resources she has about me, her manager or even an employee in this company, can't give me 30 minutes of their time to evaluate me in a human-to-human discussion or even a respectable coding test where I have a human on the other side.
In addition to that I told the recruiter from day 1 on the phone that I don't do those tests. So what happened after that: I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
My question: Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
EDIT: I mentioned at the end of that email that I'm always available for any test or interview that involves people on the other side. This is to answer those wondering "how to know it's you who coded".
professionalism software-industry recruitment software test
|
show 11 more comments
Short version: I had an experience with a recruiter that I think was not fair, due to how much time was spent responding to emails and calls, and then being presented with a test. Where's the line to asking to do tests?
Long version:
A few times I get in contact by a company for a job interview after they see my profile online. They ask me to do one of these hackerrank or leetcode tests. I've done a few. Sometimes it goes good and sometimes it goes bad. But the annoying part is that if the result is bad I just get dismissed without any feedback. Once, a few years back, I even got dismissed after I coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code (this makes it sound like I did a shitty job, but others were impressed with what I did... so how can I know what went wrong?). This bothers me and I'd like to ask about it.
Recently I was contacted by this company, whose got my 2 page CV with all my accomplishments and skills. She got my stack overflow account + my git page + a public github repository for a project for which I've been working for over a year + binary program for a project that I wrote from scratch + website that I designed for the last project and a few other things with that. All that + a 1 hour discussion on the phone about my work and my history with the recruiter.
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV. But I also responded to that email, which took me like 45 minutes to write.
After all that, she emails me and tells me that I have to do 60-90 minute test with one of these random coding websites. At this point, I honestly internally snapped.
This is because after all this time I spent with this recruiter, and all the information and resources she has about me, her manager or even an employee in this company, can't give me 30 minutes of their time to evaluate me in a human-to-human discussion or even a respectable coding test where I have a human on the other side.
In addition to that I told the recruiter from day 1 on the phone that I don't do those tests. So what happened after that: I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
My question: Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
EDIT: I mentioned at the end of that email that I'm always available for any test or interview that involves people on the other side. This is to answer those wondering "how to know it's you who coded".
professionalism software-industry recruitment software test
1
How can the company be sure that the stackoverflow / github profile is actually yours? Might they be verifying this by asking you do to a coding test of their choosing?
– meriton
15 hours ago
1
I'm confused, they did give you their human time? One hour and 45 minutes of it? And you did a 3 day exercise before but now refuse to do a 60 minute one?
– stannius
15 hours ago
11
@TheQuantumPhysicist If we can set aside for a minute how unreasonable this request may be, what would your personal reaction be to this reaction to a request to fulfill step of the hiring process? I'd see it as a red flag that this person will be overly dramatic and unable to deal with normal corporate red tape but maybe that's just me.
– Myles
14 hours ago
4
@Myles That's fair. I understand that what I said was a little dramatic. I was angry, to be honest, and they didn't seem to be understanding at all. I felt like my time is worth nothing and their time is worth everything. It's really disrespectful! This is the first time in my life I make such a response in a professional context. I don't think I'm gonna do it again. I'm asking here on SE to get the general feel of this story so I can improve.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
2
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase something like that to improve the title some. Maybe "automated code test"? If anyone feels that's good, please feel free to edit the title. I wouldn't view it as "stealing my idea" or something like that. :)
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
Short version: I had an experience with a recruiter that I think was not fair, due to how much time was spent responding to emails and calls, and then being presented with a test. Where's the line to asking to do tests?
Long version:
A few times I get in contact by a company for a job interview after they see my profile online. They ask me to do one of these hackerrank or leetcode tests. I've done a few. Sometimes it goes good and sometimes it goes bad. But the annoying part is that if the result is bad I just get dismissed without any feedback. Once, a few years back, I even got dismissed after I coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code (this makes it sound like I did a shitty job, but others were impressed with what I did... so how can I know what went wrong?). This bothers me and I'd like to ask about it.
Recently I was contacted by this company, whose got my 2 page CV with all my accomplishments and skills. She got my stack overflow account + my git page + a public github repository for a project for which I've been working for over a year + binary program for a project that I wrote from scratch + website that I designed for the last project and a few other things with that. All that + a 1 hour discussion on the phone about my work and my history with the recruiter.
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV. But I also responded to that email, which took me like 45 minutes to write.
After all that, she emails me and tells me that I have to do 60-90 minute test with one of these random coding websites. At this point, I honestly internally snapped.
This is because after all this time I spent with this recruiter, and all the information and resources she has about me, her manager or even an employee in this company, can't give me 30 minutes of their time to evaluate me in a human-to-human discussion or even a respectable coding test where I have a human on the other side.
In addition to that I told the recruiter from day 1 on the phone that I don't do those tests. So what happened after that: I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
My question: Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
EDIT: I mentioned at the end of that email that I'm always available for any test or interview that involves people on the other side. This is to answer those wondering "how to know it's you who coded".
professionalism software-industry recruitment software test
Short version: I had an experience with a recruiter that I think was not fair, due to how much time was spent responding to emails and calls, and then being presented with a test. Where's the line to asking to do tests?
Long version:
A few times I get in contact by a company for a job interview after they see my profile online. They ask me to do one of these hackerrank or leetcode tests. I've done a few. Sometimes it goes good and sometimes it goes bad. But the annoying part is that if the result is bad I just get dismissed without any feedback. Once, a few years back, I even got dismissed after I coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code (this makes it sound like I did a shitty job, but others were impressed with what I did... so how can I know what went wrong?). This bothers me and I'd like to ask about it.
Recently I was contacted by this company, whose got my 2 page CV with all my accomplishments and skills. She got my stack overflow account + my git page + a public github repository for a project for which I've been working for over a year + binary program for a project that I wrote from scratch + website that I designed for the last project and a few other things with that. All that + a 1 hour discussion on the phone about my work and my history with the recruiter.
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV. But I also responded to that email, which took me like 45 minutes to write.
After all that, she emails me and tells me that I have to do 60-90 minute test with one of these random coding websites. At this point, I honestly internally snapped.
This is because after all this time I spent with this recruiter, and all the information and resources she has about me, her manager or even an employee in this company, can't give me 30 minutes of their time to evaluate me in a human-to-human discussion or even a respectable coding test where I have a human on the other side.
In addition to that I told the recruiter from day 1 on the phone that I don't do those tests. So what happened after that: I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
My question: Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
EDIT: I mentioned at the end of that email that I'm always available for any test or interview that involves people on the other side. This is to answer those wondering "how to know it's you who coded".
professionalism software-industry recruitment software test
professionalism software-industry recruitment software test
edited 11 hours ago
The Quantum Physicist
asked 15 hours ago
The Quantum PhysicistThe Quantum Physicist
2,1553818
2,1553818
1
How can the company be sure that the stackoverflow / github profile is actually yours? Might they be verifying this by asking you do to a coding test of their choosing?
– meriton
15 hours ago
1
I'm confused, they did give you their human time? One hour and 45 minutes of it? And you did a 3 day exercise before but now refuse to do a 60 minute one?
– stannius
15 hours ago
11
@TheQuantumPhysicist If we can set aside for a minute how unreasonable this request may be, what would your personal reaction be to this reaction to a request to fulfill step of the hiring process? I'd see it as a red flag that this person will be overly dramatic and unable to deal with normal corporate red tape but maybe that's just me.
– Myles
14 hours ago
4
@Myles That's fair. I understand that what I said was a little dramatic. I was angry, to be honest, and they didn't seem to be understanding at all. I felt like my time is worth nothing and their time is worth everything. It's really disrespectful! This is the first time in my life I make such a response in a professional context. I don't think I'm gonna do it again. I'm asking here on SE to get the general feel of this story so I can improve.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
2
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase something like that to improve the title some. Maybe "automated code test"? If anyone feels that's good, please feel free to edit the title. I wouldn't view it as "stealing my idea" or something like that. :)
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
1
How can the company be sure that the stackoverflow / github profile is actually yours? Might they be verifying this by asking you do to a coding test of their choosing?
– meriton
15 hours ago
1
I'm confused, they did give you their human time? One hour and 45 minutes of it? And you did a 3 day exercise before but now refuse to do a 60 minute one?
– stannius
15 hours ago
11
@TheQuantumPhysicist If we can set aside for a minute how unreasonable this request may be, what would your personal reaction be to this reaction to a request to fulfill step of the hiring process? I'd see it as a red flag that this person will be overly dramatic and unable to deal with normal corporate red tape but maybe that's just me.
– Myles
14 hours ago
4
@Myles That's fair. I understand that what I said was a little dramatic. I was angry, to be honest, and they didn't seem to be understanding at all. I felt like my time is worth nothing and their time is worth everything. It's really disrespectful! This is the first time in my life I make such a response in a professional context. I don't think I'm gonna do it again. I'm asking here on SE to get the general feel of this story so I can improve.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
2
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase something like that to improve the title some. Maybe "automated code test"? If anyone feels that's good, please feel free to edit the title. I wouldn't view it as "stealing my idea" or something like that. :)
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
1
1
How can the company be sure that the stackoverflow / github profile is actually yours? Might they be verifying this by asking you do to a coding test of their choosing?
– meriton
15 hours ago
How can the company be sure that the stackoverflow / github profile is actually yours? Might they be verifying this by asking you do to a coding test of their choosing?
– meriton
15 hours ago
1
1
I'm confused, they did give you their human time? One hour and 45 minutes of it? And you did a 3 day exercise before but now refuse to do a 60 minute one?
– stannius
15 hours ago
I'm confused, they did give you their human time? One hour and 45 minutes of it? And you did a 3 day exercise before but now refuse to do a 60 minute one?
– stannius
15 hours ago
11
11
@TheQuantumPhysicist If we can set aside for a minute how unreasonable this request may be, what would your personal reaction be to this reaction to a request to fulfill step of the hiring process? I'd see it as a red flag that this person will be overly dramatic and unable to deal with normal corporate red tape but maybe that's just me.
– Myles
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist If we can set aside for a minute how unreasonable this request may be, what would your personal reaction be to this reaction to a request to fulfill step of the hiring process? I'd see it as a red flag that this person will be overly dramatic and unable to deal with normal corporate red tape but maybe that's just me.
– Myles
14 hours ago
4
4
@Myles That's fair. I understand that what I said was a little dramatic. I was angry, to be honest, and they didn't seem to be understanding at all. I felt like my time is worth nothing and their time is worth everything. It's really disrespectful! This is the first time in my life I make such a response in a professional context. I don't think I'm gonna do it again. I'm asking here on SE to get the general feel of this story so I can improve.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@Myles That's fair. I understand that what I said was a little dramatic. I was angry, to be honest, and they didn't seem to be understanding at all. I felt like my time is worth nothing and their time is worth everything. It's really disrespectful! This is the first time in my life I make such a response in a professional context. I don't think I'm gonna do it again. I'm asking here on SE to get the general feel of this story so I can improve.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
2
2
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase something like that to improve the title some. Maybe "automated code test"? If anyone feels that's good, please feel free to edit the title. I wouldn't view it as "stealing my idea" or something like that. :)
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase something like that to improve the title some. Maybe "automated code test"? If anyone feels that's good, please feel free to edit the title. I wouldn't view it as "stealing my idea" or something like that. :)
– Captain Man
12 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
What's fair or not is going to depend on everybody's definition of fair and ultimately it doesn't matter. That company has a process, and it sounds like they make everybody go through that process regardless of credentials. Whether their process is good or fair is a separate discussion. You felt it was excessive so you decided to move on and pursue other opportunities, which is your right to do so. I know a bunch of programmers who would have no problems with that interview and a bunch more who would have made the same decision you did.
What it boils down to is only you can decide where you should draw the line and how willing you are to tell a company you don't want a position if they try to cross that line. You will probably lose some potential job opportunities but that's the way it goes. Again only you can decide if you're willing to lose those opportunities in exchange for not putting up with such interview processes.
add a comment |
Unfortunately, those damn tests are part and parcel to the application process these days, thanks to all the antics out there. (I could write a book on the scams I've encountered)
From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to say that this is not a hill you want to die on. It's annoying, insulting, and downright irritating, but unfortunately, it's part of the process.
You said:
I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
What principles are those? Would you stand by them at the price of your dream job?
Doing things like sending emails of that nature can get you a bad rep fairly quickly.
My answer here sums up how you might be viewed.
TLDR:
You are overreacting. This is a normal part of the process, though irritating, and unavoidable. Companies have policies and procedures they must follow, and often these tests are part of it.
8
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
2
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
1
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
1
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
4
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Personally, I agree with you. Essentially, a company that makes you take a programming exam before they will even speaking to you is trying to demanding a lot of your time before they'll even look at you. Obviously, the company is within its rights to do so, but I have to want a job very, very badly if I'm going to take any kind of test in order to apply. It's hard for me to think of many situations where I'd be willing to do so.
I also have extensive examples of code I've written in the past for people to evaluate, and not only does that not require a bunch of my time, I feel like examining code I've written in the past is more likely to reflect the kind of work I would do than a coding exam.
Of course, in deciding not to take exams, I'm ruling myself out of jobs that require these coding exams. That's something I'm okay with for now; the decision that matters for you is whether or not you are okay ruling these jobs out and only looking at other opportunities.
2
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
2
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
2
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Here's the thing about a StackOverflow account or a GitHub account or any number of code samples you can send to a recruiter: There's no actual proof that you actually did it. Of course, it would be unethical to say you did a bunch of work that someone else actually did, but truthfully speaking there's no real way to guard against that. That's why you have to do a programming test somewhat-live. This provides some safeguards (from the recruiter's perspective). The below is all assuming that you are lying when you say that all the code samples you provided are your own (I'm not saying you are lying; I'm saying there are people out there who do lie, and the purpose of this coding-test exercise is to catch those people, and this is how these sorts of things help catch those people):
1) If you are told to do a coding test within 2 days (or whatever), it's unlikely you can call your programming-whiz buddy who wrote your code samples for you to come over and do the test on such a short timeline.
2) If you are asked to do many tests for many recruiters, then it is unlikely your programming-whiz buddy has the time/patience to do all these tests for you.
Therefore, with high likelihood, if you are asked to do a coding test, you will actually do it yourself rather than cheat (remember the presumption from the recruiter is that there is a possibility you cheated when you sent them code samples, this exercise is to negate that presumption).
So that's why they do it and what they gain out of it. As for whether that's a reasonable thing to ask, after spending a bunch of time on the phone with you or whatnot, that's up to you. How badly do you want the job? If you're not willing to spend a couple hours of your time on a coding test, maybe that's a barrier for entry to the company: "we only want people who are devoted enough to our recruiting process to spend time doing this coding test". Maybe you don't think such a rule is reasonable, and that's your prerogative. However, many companies do this, so you are going to restrict yourself by not playing along.
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
9
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
3
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
1
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Once, a few years back, I... coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code
That's about two days longer than I would spent on it.
My question: Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Bottom line is that you'll have to decide that.
I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
Again it is for you to decide. Since you seem to want opinions I will tell you that I wouldn't have snapped at the point in the process which you did - that isn't a criticism of you.
The reason I would not have snapped at that point is that I suspect you passed all of the really important tests and the coding test was a formality required by the company. If the recruiter and manager put a lot of value the coding test you would have been given that first before you talked to them at length.
Perhaps we look at things differently, which is fine - but just FYI the thing that would have set me off is this line you wrote:
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV.
If the hiring manager doesn't read my resume before the interview, I consider that a bad sign.
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
1
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?
Yes, it's fair.
- How do I know that it didn't take you a year to create that HelloWorld project on Github?
- How do I know that you created it in the first place and didn't copy it from somewhere?
- How do I know that your coding skills are current? (maybe you accrued the SO rep years ago and haven't coded since)
Having you complete an online coding test verifies that you know how to code, and you don't spend hours on simple problems. Looking at your Github doesn't really help me verify that.
From the company's perspective, hiring a bad apple can be a very costly mistake. These tests helps recruiters sleep at night by decreasing the chance that they're hiring a bad candidate.
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way?
This is normal, and I would say that you're over-reacting. I don't see how this is abusive in any way.
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Different people will draw the line in different places. You need to compare the payoff (a new job) against the drawback (wasted time). Personally I would consider the payoff to be high and therefore would take the test only if I considered that the drawback was high.
A good metric for judging time expenditure is to consider money. Ask yourself: "is it worth asking to be compensated for my time?"
You described a three day coding test for which you received no feedback. This is clearly unreasonable and it would have been worth asking for compensation in advance.
On the other hand a 60-90 minute test is, while irritating, not equivalent to a stack of cash in lost time (you'd be asking for less than £50?). It would be nice to be paid for it but at the end of the day you haven't made a significant investment if things don't work out.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126299%2fis-it-fair-to-ask-someone-for-a-non-human-coding-test-if-they-have-lots-of-demon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(function () {
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function () {
var showEditor = function() {
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
};
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True') {
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup({
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup) {
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
}
})
} else{
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true) {
showEditor();
}
}
});
});
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
What's fair or not is going to depend on everybody's definition of fair and ultimately it doesn't matter. That company has a process, and it sounds like they make everybody go through that process regardless of credentials. Whether their process is good or fair is a separate discussion. You felt it was excessive so you decided to move on and pursue other opportunities, which is your right to do so. I know a bunch of programmers who would have no problems with that interview and a bunch more who would have made the same decision you did.
What it boils down to is only you can decide where you should draw the line and how willing you are to tell a company you don't want a position if they try to cross that line. You will probably lose some potential job opportunities but that's the way it goes. Again only you can decide if you're willing to lose those opportunities in exchange for not putting up with such interview processes.
add a comment |
What's fair or not is going to depend on everybody's definition of fair and ultimately it doesn't matter. That company has a process, and it sounds like they make everybody go through that process regardless of credentials. Whether their process is good or fair is a separate discussion. You felt it was excessive so you decided to move on and pursue other opportunities, which is your right to do so. I know a bunch of programmers who would have no problems with that interview and a bunch more who would have made the same decision you did.
What it boils down to is only you can decide where you should draw the line and how willing you are to tell a company you don't want a position if they try to cross that line. You will probably lose some potential job opportunities but that's the way it goes. Again only you can decide if you're willing to lose those opportunities in exchange for not putting up with such interview processes.
add a comment |
What's fair or not is going to depend on everybody's definition of fair and ultimately it doesn't matter. That company has a process, and it sounds like they make everybody go through that process regardless of credentials. Whether their process is good or fair is a separate discussion. You felt it was excessive so you decided to move on and pursue other opportunities, which is your right to do so. I know a bunch of programmers who would have no problems with that interview and a bunch more who would have made the same decision you did.
What it boils down to is only you can decide where you should draw the line and how willing you are to tell a company you don't want a position if they try to cross that line. You will probably lose some potential job opportunities but that's the way it goes. Again only you can decide if you're willing to lose those opportunities in exchange for not putting up with such interview processes.
What's fair or not is going to depend on everybody's definition of fair and ultimately it doesn't matter. That company has a process, and it sounds like they make everybody go through that process regardless of credentials. Whether their process is good or fair is a separate discussion. You felt it was excessive so you decided to move on and pursue other opportunities, which is your right to do so. I know a bunch of programmers who would have no problems with that interview and a bunch more who would have made the same decision you did.
What it boils down to is only you can decide where you should draw the line and how willing you are to tell a company you don't want a position if they try to cross that line. You will probably lose some potential job opportunities but that's the way it goes. Again only you can decide if you're willing to lose those opportunities in exchange for not putting up with such interview processes.
edited 11 hours ago
Nathan Hughes
10313
10313
answered 15 hours ago
Lee AbrahamLee Abraham
1,2081221
1,2081221
add a comment |
add a comment |
Unfortunately, those damn tests are part and parcel to the application process these days, thanks to all the antics out there. (I could write a book on the scams I've encountered)
From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to say that this is not a hill you want to die on. It's annoying, insulting, and downright irritating, but unfortunately, it's part of the process.
You said:
I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
What principles are those? Would you stand by them at the price of your dream job?
Doing things like sending emails of that nature can get you a bad rep fairly quickly.
My answer here sums up how you might be viewed.
TLDR:
You are overreacting. This is a normal part of the process, though irritating, and unavoidable. Companies have policies and procedures they must follow, and often these tests are part of it.
8
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
2
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
1
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
1
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
4
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Unfortunately, those damn tests are part and parcel to the application process these days, thanks to all the antics out there. (I could write a book on the scams I've encountered)
From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to say that this is not a hill you want to die on. It's annoying, insulting, and downright irritating, but unfortunately, it's part of the process.
You said:
I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
What principles are those? Would you stand by them at the price of your dream job?
Doing things like sending emails of that nature can get you a bad rep fairly quickly.
My answer here sums up how you might be viewed.
TLDR:
You are overreacting. This is a normal part of the process, though irritating, and unavoidable. Companies have policies and procedures they must follow, and often these tests are part of it.
8
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
2
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
1
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
1
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
4
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Unfortunately, those damn tests are part and parcel to the application process these days, thanks to all the antics out there. (I could write a book on the scams I've encountered)
From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to say that this is not a hill you want to die on. It's annoying, insulting, and downright irritating, but unfortunately, it's part of the process.
You said:
I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
What principles are those? Would you stand by them at the price of your dream job?
Doing things like sending emails of that nature can get you a bad rep fairly quickly.
My answer here sums up how you might be viewed.
TLDR:
You are overreacting. This is a normal part of the process, though irritating, and unavoidable. Companies have policies and procedures they must follow, and often these tests are part of it.
Unfortunately, those damn tests are part and parcel to the application process these days, thanks to all the antics out there. (I could write a book on the scams I've encountered)
From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to say that this is not a hill you want to die on. It's annoying, insulting, and downright irritating, but unfortunately, it's part of the process.
You said:
I told her by email something in the lines of "I'm sorry, if I have an ultimatum to stop the recruitment process or do the test, I'd stop. I have principles, and this is disrespectful".
What principles are those? Would you stand by them at the price of your dream job?
Doing things like sending emails of that nature can get you a bad rep fairly quickly.
My answer here sums up how you might be viewed.
TLDR:
You are overreacting. This is a normal part of the process, though irritating, and unavoidable. Companies have policies and procedures they must follow, and often these tests are part of it.
answered 15 hours ago
Richard URichard U
88.9k64227350
88.9k64227350
8
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
2
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
1
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
1
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
4
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
8
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
2
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
1
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
1
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
4
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
8
8
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
I think the key perspective is that it's not about you. It's just that there's so many liars, cheats, and fools out there, and they have to verify that you aren't one of them. Arguably, you could consider it as partially for your own benefit: if a company has weak recruiting practices, you'd probably end up working with a bunch of incompetent coworkers.
– stannius
14 hours ago
2
2
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
@stannous No lie: We had a case where someone didn't know the difference between a sub and a function in VBA
– Richard U
14 hours ago
1
1
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
@RichardU : I've interviewed people for a PL/SQL position and they couldn't tell me the parts of a PL/SQL block. (and this was my weed out question -- call them up, ask them if I they have 10-15 minutes to talk, ask them for some clarification on their resume ('what was your role in the project' type stuff ... and then half of them can't answer making me think they've only done SQL, not PL/SQL.) And besides, even if they had the greatest program ever ... did they whip it out in an hour, or struggle through it over 4 months?
– Joe
13 hours ago
1
1
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
@Joe see, this kind of interview I love. Where I work now, when I applied, they invited me on their expense, and got a pro guy who diced the hell out of me asking me all kinds of programming questions. After an hour of questioning I failed to answer only 1 question, and that's how I got my current job.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
4
4
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
@joe If they had the greatest program ever, does it matter if it took them an hour or 4 months to write it? Because if it's that good, I guarantee you that the only way it was possible for them to write it in an hour is because they had years and years of practice learning to become capable of producing something good within an hour.
– Mason Wheeler
8 hours ago
|
show 5 more comments
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Personally, I agree with you. Essentially, a company that makes you take a programming exam before they will even speaking to you is trying to demanding a lot of your time before they'll even look at you. Obviously, the company is within its rights to do so, but I have to want a job very, very badly if I'm going to take any kind of test in order to apply. It's hard for me to think of many situations where I'd be willing to do so.
I also have extensive examples of code I've written in the past for people to evaluate, and not only does that not require a bunch of my time, I feel like examining code I've written in the past is more likely to reflect the kind of work I would do than a coding exam.
Of course, in deciding not to take exams, I'm ruling myself out of jobs that require these coding exams. That's something I'm okay with for now; the decision that matters for you is whether or not you are okay ruling these jobs out and only looking at other opportunities.
2
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
2
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
2
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Personally, I agree with you. Essentially, a company that makes you take a programming exam before they will even speaking to you is trying to demanding a lot of your time before they'll even look at you. Obviously, the company is within its rights to do so, but I have to want a job very, very badly if I'm going to take any kind of test in order to apply. It's hard for me to think of many situations where I'd be willing to do so.
I also have extensive examples of code I've written in the past for people to evaluate, and not only does that not require a bunch of my time, I feel like examining code I've written in the past is more likely to reflect the kind of work I would do than a coding exam.
Of course, in deciding not to take exams, I'm ruling myself out of jobs that require these coding exams. That's something I'm okay with for now; the decision that matters for you is whether or not you are okay ruling these jobs out and only looking at other opportunities.
2
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
2
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
2
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Personally, I agree with you. Essentially, a company that makes you take a programming exam before they will even speaking to you is trying to demanding a lot of your time before they'll even look at you. Obviously, the company is within its rights to do so, but I have to want a job very, very badly if I'm going to take any kind of test in order to apply. It's hard for me to think of many situations where I'd be willing to do so.
I also have extensive examples of code I've written in the past for people to evaluate, and not only does that not require a bunch of my time, I feel like examining code I've written in the past is more likely to reflect the kind of work I would do than a coding exam.
Of course, in deciding not to take exams, I'm ruling myself out of jobs that require these coding exams. That's something I'm okay with for now; the decision that matters for you is whether or not you are okay ruling these jobs out and only looking at other opportunities.
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Personally, I agree with you. Essentially, a company that makes you take a programming exam before they will even speaking to you is trying to demanding a lot of your time before they'll even look at you. Obviously, the company is within its rights to do so, but I have to want a job very, very badly if I'm going to take any kind of test in order to apply. It's hard for me to think of many situations where I'd be willing to do so.
I also have extensive examples of code I've written in the past for people to evaluate, and not only does that not require a bunch of my time, I feel like examining code I've written in the past is more likely to reflect the kind of work I would do than a coding exam.
Of course, in deciding not to take exams, I'm ruling myself out of jobs that require these coding exams. That's something I'm okay with for now; the decision that matters for you is whether or not you are okay ruling these jobs out and only looking at other opportunities.
answered 14 hours ago
dbeerdbeer
5,1483821
5,1483821
2
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
2
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
2
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
2
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
2
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
2
2
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
But the company already spoke to OP. They spent an hour with HR, and then another 45 minutes answering more questions. This isn't a first step of the interview for this company.
– Catsunami
14 hours ago
2
2
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@Catsunami You're the second person who thinks that the company spent another 45 minutes with me. May I ask where you got that from? I said that I spent 45 minutes writing the email. I never said they spent 45 minutes reading what I wrote.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist, I didn't say the company spent 45 minutes with you. I said you spent an hour with HR and then YOU spent an hour 45 answering more questions (via email). The point is, the coding question wasn't the first thing the company asked for.
– Catsunami
13 hours ago
2
2
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
You need to remember that YOU are also Interviewing THEM. If you think they are abusive in their hiring practices, then it sounds like you don't think they are a good fit. The selection process goes both ways. If you have skills that they need, then you have at least some power in the hiring process. Sometimes people forget that, because being unemployed can be maddening (and sometimes your savings starts running out before you find a good fit).
– Kyle A
10 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
@Catsunami, your comment is a good example of why using "they" to refer to a specific single person is a bad idea. It's confusing and unclear. Especially when your first sentence had OP as the object, not the subject.
– Wildcard
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Here's the thing about a StackOverflow account or a GitHub account or any number of code samples you can send to a recruiter: There's no actual proof that you actually did it. Of course, it would be unethical to say you did a bunch of work that someone else actually did, but truthfully speaking there's no real way to guard against that. That's why you have to do a programming test somewhat-live. This provides some safeguards (from the recruiter's perspective). The below is all assuming that you are lying when you say that all the code samples you provided are your own (I'm not saying you are lying; I'm saying there are people out there who do lie, and the purpose of this coding-test exercise is to catch those people, and this is how these sorts of things help catch those people):
1) If you are told to do a coding test within 2 days (or whatever), it's unlikely you can call your programming-whiz buddy who wrote your code samples for you to come over and do the test on such a short timeline.
2) If you are asked to do many tests for many recruiters, then it is unlikely your programming-whiz buddy has the time/patience to do all these tests for you.
Therefore, with high likelihood, if you are asked to do a coding test, you will actually do it yourself rather than cheat (remember the presumption from the recruiter is that there is a possibility you cheated when you sent them code samples, this exercise is to negate that presumption).
So that's why they do it and what they gain out of it. As for whether that's a reasonable thing to ask, after spending a bunch of time on the phone with you or whatnot, that's up to you. How badly do you want the job? If you're not willing to spend a couple hours of your time on a coding test, maybe that's a barrier for entry to the company: "we only want people who are devoted enough to our recruiting process to spend time doing this coding test". Maybe you don't think such a rule is reasonable, and that's your prerogative. However, many companies do this, so you are going to restrict yourself by not playing along.
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
9
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
3
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
1
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Here's the thing about a StackOverflow account or a GitHub account or any number of code samples you can send to a recruiter: There's no actual proof that you actually did it. Of course, it would be unethical to say you did a bunch of work that someone else actually did, but truthfully speaking there's no real way to guard against that. That's why you have to do a programming test somewhat-live. This provides some safeguards (from the recruiter's perspective). The below is all assuming that you are lying when you say that all the code samples you provided are your own (I'm not saying you are lying; I'm saying there are people out there who do lie, and the purpose of this coding-test exercise is to catch those people, and this is how these sorts of things help catch those people):
1) If you are told to do a coding test within 2 days (or whatever), it's unlikely you can call your programming-whiz buddy who wrote your code samples for you to come over and do the test on such a short timeline.
2) If you are asked to do many tests for many recruiters, then it is unlikely your programming-whiz buddy has the time/patience to do all these tests for you.
Therefore, with high likelihood, if you are asked to do a coding test, you will actually do it yourself rather than cheat (remember the presumption from the recruiter is that there is a possibility you cheated when you sent them code samples, this exercise is to negate that presumption).
So that's why they do it and what they gain out of it. As for whether that's a reasonable thing to ask, after spending a bunch of time on the phone with you or whatnot, that's up to you. How badly do you want the job? If you're not willing to spend a couple hours of your time on a coding test, maybe that's a barrier for entry to the company: "we only want people who are devoted enough to our recruiting process to spend time doing this coding test". Maybe you don't think such a rule is reasonable, and that's your prerogative. However, many companies do this, so you are going to restrict yourself by not playing along.
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
9
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
3
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
1
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Here's the thing about a StackOverflow account or a GitHub account or any number of code samples you can send to a recruiter: There's no actual proof that you actually did it. Of course, it would be unethical to say you did a bunch of work that someone else actually did, but truthfully speaking there's no real way to guard against that. That's why you have to do a programming test somewhat-live. This provides some safeguards (from the recruiter's perspective). The below is all assuming that you are lying when you say that all the code samples you provided are your own (I'm not saying you are lying; I'm saying there are people out there who do lie, and the purpose of this coding-test exercise is to catch those people, and this is how these sorts of things help catch those people):
1) If you are told to do a coding test within 2 days (or whatever), it's unlikely you can call your programming-whiz buddy who wrote your code samples for you to come over and do the test on such a short timeline.
2) If you are asked to do many tests for many recruiters, then it is unlikely your programming-whiz buddy has the time/patience to do all these tests for you.
Therefore, with high likelihood, if you are asked to do a coding test, you will actually do it yourself rather than cheat (remember the presumption from the recruiter is that there is a possibility you cheated when you sent them code samples, this exercise is to negate that presumption).
So that's why they do it and what they gain out of it. As for whether that's a reasonable thing to ask, after spending a bunch of time on the phone with you or whatnot, that's up to you. How badly do you want the job? If you're not willing to spend a couple hours of your time on a coding test, maybe that's a barrier for entry to the company: "we only want people who are devoted enough to our recruiting process to spend time doing this coding test". Maybe you don't think such a rule is reasonable, and that's your prerogative. However, many companies do this, so you are going to restrict yourself by not playing along.
Here's the thing about a StackOverflow account or a GitHub account or any number of code samples you can send to a recruiter: There's no actual proof that you actually did it. Of course, it would be unethical to say you did a bunch of work that someone else actually did, but truthfully speaking there's no real way to guard against that. That's why you have to do a programming test somewhat-live. This provides some safeguards (from the recruiter's perspective). The below is all assuming that you are lying when you say that all the code samples you provided are your own (I'm not saying you are lying; I'm saying there are people out there who do lie, and the purpose of this coding-test exercise is to catch those people, and this is how these sorts of things help catch those people):
1) If you are told to do a coding test within 2 days (or whatever), it's unlikely you can call your programming-whiz buddy who wrote your code samples for you to come over and do the test on such a short timeline.
2) If you are asked to do many tests for many recruiters, then it is unlikely your programming-whiz buddy has the time/patience to do all these tests for you.
Therefore, with high likelihood, if you are asked to do a coding test, you will actually do it yourself rather than cheat (remember the presumption from the recruiter is that there is a possibility you cheated when you sent them code samples, this exercise is to negate that presumption).
So that's why they do it and what they gain out of it. As for whether that's a reasonable thing to ask, after spending a bunch of time on the phone with you or whatnot, that's up to you. How badly do you want the job? If you're not willing to spend a couple hours of your time on a coding test, maybe that's a barrier for entry to the company: "we only want people who are devoted enough to our recruiting process to spend time doing this coding test". Maybe you don't think such a rule is reasonable, and that's your prerogative. However, many companies do this, so you are going to restrict yourself by not playing along.
answered 14 hours ago
Ertai87Ertai87
7,1551720
7,1551720
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
9
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
3
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
1
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
9
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
3
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
1
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
I'm OK with a coding test with a human. My problem was that no one wanted to meet with me and test me.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
9
9
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
It's not just to rule out that you got someone else to code your work which is on github. It's that 1) it takes a lot of effort to find out how good someone is from code on github, and 2) it's really hard to compare candidates that way. It's much better if you can give all your candidates the same (or similar) tasks.
– Abigail
14 hours ago
3
3
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
If I were the sort of person to help others cheat on tests, I don't see why I couldn't do it on short notice, or charge money to keep my interest up. The only way to make sure the candidate is the one taking the test is to have physical presence.
– David Thornley
12 hours ago
1
1
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
@Ertai87 As opposed to guarding against someone who possibly faked large amounts of qualifications with a test that can be easily faked; after investing several hours in their recruitment already.......
– 8bitwide
12 hours ago
1
1
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
There's no real proof you're the one taking the automated test assigned to you either, honestly. I could always get my buddy to take it for me.
– Draco18s
11 hours ago
|
show 13 more comments
Once, a few years back, I... coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code
That's about two days longer than I would spent on it.
My question: Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Bottom line is that you'll have to decide that.
I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
Again it is for you to decide. Since you seem to want opinions I will tell you that I wouldn't have snapped at the point in the process which you did - that isn't a criticism of you.
The reason I would not have snapped at that point is that I suspect you passed all of the really important tests and the coding test was a formality required by the company. If the recruiter and manager put a lot of value the coding test you would have been given that first before you talked to them at length.
Perhaps we look at things differently, which is fine - but just FYI the thing that would have set me off is this line you wrote:
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV.
If the hiring manager doesn't read my resume before the interview, I consider that a bad sign.
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
1
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Once, a few years back, I... coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code
That's about two days longer than I would spent on it.
My question: Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Bottom line is that you'll have to decide that.
I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
Again it is for you to decide. Since you seem to want opinions I will tell you that I wouldn't have snapped at the point in the process which you did - that isn't a criticism of you.
The reason I would not have snapped at that point is that I suspect you passed all of the really important tests and the coding test was a formality required by the company. If the recruiter and manager put a lot of value the coding test you would have been given that first before you talked to them at length.
Perhaps we look at things differently, which is fine - but just FYI the thing that would have set me off is this line you wrote:
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV.
If the hiring manager doesn't read my resume before the interview, I consider that a bad sign.
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
1
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Once, a few years back, I... coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code
That's about two days longer than I would spent on it.
My question: Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Bottom line is that you'll have to decide that.
I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
Again it is for you to decide. Since you seem to want opinions I will tell you that I wouldn't have snapped at the point in the process which you did - that isn't a criticism of you.
The reason I would not have snapped at that point is that I suspect you passed all of the really important tests and the coding test was a formality required by the company. If the recruiter and manager put a lot of value the coding test you would have been given that first before you talked to them at length.
Perhaps we look at things differently, which is fine - but just FYI the thing that would have set me off is this line you wrote:
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV.
If the hiring manager doesn't read my resume before the interview, I consider that a bad sign.
Once, a few years back, I... coded for 3 days straight and submitted the code
That's about two days longer than I would spent on it.
My question: Isn't this abuse in a way? Like what's the limit to this "abuse" so to say?
Bottom line is that you'll have to decide that.
I'm not all against tests. I did tests for many companies. But this felt kind of excessive. I'd like to know where I should draw the line.
Again it is for you to decide. Since you seem to want opinions I will tell you that I wouldn't have snapped at the point in the process which you did - that isn't a criticism of you.
The reason I would not have snapped at that point is that I suspect you passed all of the really important tests and the coding test was a formality required by the company. If the recruiter and manager put a lot of value the coding test you would have been given that first before you talked to them at length.
Perhaps we look at things differently, which is fine - but just FYI the thing that would have set me off is this line you wrote:
Then, after that she contacted her manager and told him about me, and he also asked me again the same questions we discussed over the phone, to which the answers are in the CV.
If the hiring manager doesn't read my resume before the interview, I consider that a bad sign.
answered 13 hours ago
J. Chris ComptonJ. Chris Compton
2,817322
2,817322
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
1
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
1
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
Thanks for the valuable answer. Honestly I sensed the bad sign you talked about which encouraged me to do what I did. My patience made me postpone the action more or less.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
I wouldn't have thought nearly as much about the duplication of things between the CV and the recruiter. As a hiring manager, I did both almost all of the time. In re: the CV, it's a chance to get the applicant to open up about the details of the experience. In re: the recruiter...do you trust a recruiter to appropriately grok the finer details of technical experience? I sure don't. Not as an applicant, not as a hiring manager, not even as the punchline to a joke.
– Alex H.
11 hours ago
1
1
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
@AlexH. Oh yes, I expect someone to ask me details about something on my CV/resume when I'm speaking with them (phone/video/in person). I have done that - for the same reason you mentioned. My impression was that the questions were emailed (because he talked about how long that email took) and that strikes me as odd.
– J. Chris Compton
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?
Yes, it's fair.
- How do I know that it didn't take you a year to create that HelloWorld project on Github?
- How do I know that you created it in the first place and didn't copy it from somewhere?
- How do I know that your coding skills are current? (maybe you accrued the SO rep years ago and haven't coded since)
Having you complete an online coding test verifies that you know how to code, and you don't spend hours on simple problems. Looking at your Github doesn't really help me verify that.
From the company's perspective, hiring a bad apple can be a very costly mistake. These tests helps recruiters sleep at night by decreasing the chance that they're hiring a bad candidate.
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way?
This is normal, and I would say that you're over-reacting. I don't see how this is abusive in any way.
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?
Yes, it's fair.
- How do I know that it didn't take you a year to create that HelloWorld project on Github?
- How do I know that you created it in the first place and didn't copy it from somewhere?
- How do I know that your coding skills are current? (maybe you accrued the SO rep years ago and haven't coded since)
Having you complete an online coding test verifies that you know how to code, and you don't spend hours on simple problems. Looking at your Github doesn't really help me verify that.
From the company's perspective, hiring a bad apple can be a very costly mistake. These tests helps recruiters sleep at night by decreasing the chance that they're hiring a bad candidate.
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way?
This is normal, and I would say that you're over-reacting. I don't see how this is abusive in any way.
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?
Yes, it's fair.
- How do I know that it didn't take you a year to create that HelloWorld project on Github?
- How do I know that you created it in the first place and didn't copy it from somewhere?
- How do I know that your coding skills are current? (maybe you accrued the SO rep years ago and haven't coded since)
Having you complete an online coding test verifies that you know how to code, and you don't spend hours on simple problems. Looking at your Github doesn't really help me verify that.
From the company's perspective, hiring a bad apple can be a very costly mistake. These tests helps recruiters sleep at night by decreasing the chance that they're hiring a bad candidate.
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way?
This is normal, and I would say that you're over-reacting. I don't see how this is abusive in any way.
Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?
Yes, it's fair.
- How do I know that it didn't take you a year to create that HelloWorld project on Github?
- How do I know that you created it in the first place and didn't copy it from somewhere?
- How do I know that your coding skills are current? (maybe you accrued the SO rep years ago and haven't coded since)
Having you complete an online coding test verifies that you know how to code, and you don't spend hours on simple problems. Looking at your Github doesn't really help me verify that.
From the company's perspective, hiring a bad apple can be a very costly mistake. These tests helps recruiters sleep at night by decreasing the chance that they're hiring a bad candidate.
Am I exaggerating and this is normal? Isn't this abuse in a way?
This is normal, and I would say that you're over-reacting. I don't see how this is abusive in any way.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
pushkinpushkin
1616
1616
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
All your numbered arguments are wrong. You can see the dates and commits. Thanks for trying anyway.
– The Quantum Physicist
11 hours ago
1
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist [1] Github commit dates show when you committed, not when you developed. I could have spent a year developing a program and committed it all at once, which will not tell a recruiter how long I spent creating it. How does the date/commit invalidate the second point. Again, committing something doesn't mean I developed it. I could have copied code from somewhere else and committed it.
– pushkin
11 hours ago
1
1
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
@TheQuantumPhysicist [2] Regarding the point about coding skills being current, yes, I suppose a recruiter could look at your activity. However, they need to verify that your skills are relevant in the context of the types of problems they're solving. Having 10k rep means nothing if all that rep was accrued on the java tag when they need people who are skilled in c++. In the general case, you cannot use those online tools to verify if a candidate is a good fit by themselves. A coding test allows recruiters to pick challenges that are relevant to their company
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
I am aware that there are exceptions. Coding tests however are a fairly cost-effective way of doing a little due diligence in verifying that you're a good fit. I'd prefer doing that as a recruiter than digging through their online profiles and doing that verification manually. Much simpler to pick my own problems and have the dev do an hour long test
– pushkin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Different people will draw the line in different places. You need to compare the payoff (a new job) against the drawback (wasted time). Personally I would consider the payoff to be high and therefore would take the test only if I considered that the drawback was high.
A good metric for judging time expenditure is to consider money. Ask yourself: "is it worth asking to be compensated for my time?"
You described a three day coding test for which you received no feedback. This is clearly unreasonable and it would have been worth asking for compensation in advance.
On the other hand a 60-90 minute test is, while irritating, not equivalent to a stack of cash in lost time (you'd be asking for less than £50?). It would be nice to be paid for it but at the end of the day you haven't made a significant investment if things don't work out.
add a comment |
Different people will draw the line in different places. You need to compare the payoff (a new job) against the drawback (wasted time). Personally I would consider the payoff to be high and therefore would take the test only if I considered that the drawback was high.
A good metric for judging time expenditure is to consider money. Ask yourself: "is it worth asking to be compensated for my time?"
You described a three day coding test for which you received no feedback. This is clearly unreasonable and it would have been worth asking for compensation in advance.
On the other hand a 60-90 minute test is, while irritating, not equivalent to a stack of cash in lost time (you'd be asking for less than £50?). It would be nice to be paid for it but at the end of the day you haven't made a significant investment if things don't work out.
add a comment |
Different people will draw the line in different places. You need to compare the payoff (a new job) against the drawback (wasted time). Personally I would consider the payoff to be high and therefore would take the test only if I considered that the drawback was high.
A good metric for judging time expenditure is to consider money. Ask yourself: "is it worth asking to be compensated for my time?"
You described a three day coding test for which you received no feedback. This is clearly unreasonable and it would have been worth asking for compensation in advance.
On the other hand a 60-90 minute test is, while irritating, not equivalent to a stack of cash in lost time (you'd be asking for less than £50?). It would be nice to be paid for it but at the end of the day you haven't made a significant investment if things don't work out.
Different people will draw the line in different places. You need to compare the payoff (a new job) against the drawback (wasted time). Personally I would consider the payoff to be high and therefore would take the test only if I considered that the drawback was high.
A good metric for judging time expenditure is to consider money. Ask yourself: "is it worth asking to be compensated for my time?"
You described a three day coding test for which you received no feedback. This is clearly unreasonable and it would have been worth asking for compensation in advance.
On the other hand a 60-90 minute test is, while irritating, not equivalent to a stack of cash in lost time (you'd be asking for less than £50?). It would be nice to be paid for it but at the end of the day you haven't made a significant investment if things don't work out.
answered 10 hours ago
P. HopkinsonP. Hopkinson
1713
1713
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126299%2fis-it-fair-to-ask-someone-for-a-non-human-coding-test-if-they-have-lots-of-demon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
How can the company be sure that the stackoverflow / github profile is actually yours? Might they be verifying this by asking you do to a coding test of their choosing?
– meriton
15 hours ago
1
I'm confused, they did give you their human time? One hour and 45 minutes of it? And you did a 3 day exercise before but now refuse to do a 60 minute one?
– stannius
15 hours ago
11
@TheQuantumPhysicist If we can set aside for a minute how unreasonable this request may be, what would your personal reaction be to this reaction to a request to fulfill step of the hiring process? I'd see it as a red flag that this person will be overly dramatic and unable to deal with normal corporate red tape but maybe that's just me.
– Myles
14 hours ago
4
@Myles That's fair. I understand that what I said was a little dramatic. I was angry, to be honest, and they didn't seem to be understanding at all. I felt like my time is worth nothing and their time is worth everything. It's really disrespectful! This is the first time in my life I make such a response in a professional context. I don't think I'm gonna do it again. I'm asking here on SE to get the general feel of this story so I can improve.
– The Quantum Physicist
14 hours ago
2
I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase something like that to improve the title some. Maybe "automated code test"? If anyone feels that's good, please feel free to edit the title. I wouldn't view it as "stealing my idea" or something like that. :)
– Captain Man
12 hours ago