Ytdyklly

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is it fair to ask someone for a non-human coding test if they have lots of demonstrable material online?

Yes, it's fair.

1. How do I know that it didn't take you a year to create that HelloWorld project on Github?


2. How do I know that you created it in the first place and didn't copy it from somewhere?


3. 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.

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.