We used four basic exercises during the first remote interview. Simple things like, "there is a number on each line of this text file. Find the sum of them."
This was an effective method to screen out applicants who didn't have the basic coding skills to align with their stated resume experience. And there were a decent number of these.
We did further development project exercises later in the process that took about 15 hours. We paid the candidates for this time, even those that didn't pass. It was also an effective screening tool.
All our exercises were very "real world." In the candidates own development environment and having been given instructions on how to prepare. They also have access to whatever Internet resources they want while doing the exercises. If they can't do the exercises, they can't do the job.
I know there are mixed opinions on this and I feel for candidates who have to invest a ton of time in exercises like this. But I can't imagine trying to hire without visibility into how they execute relatively basic software development tasks.
I think employers can and should structure the process so the time investment is minimal upfront and only increases as both parties have gotten to know each other and want to proceed.
Depends on the pay. If more companies start doing this, then you can imagine having to slog through 10-20 of these as an applicant will increase the time to find a job significantly. Most people don't get hired off of their first successful round of interviews. If the company pays as much as the job salary itself then I am fine with this.
Adding up all the overhead and stuff that comes before and after, we're talking about an interview process that's 3 full work days. That seems a lot, even when you're paying people. People will either have to take days off their job or sacrifice weekends.
It is a time commitment. We did have four separate exercises and they could be taken individually. So someone could do them a few evenings in a row or all in one day. Whatever worked best for them.
Truth is, I'd much rather hire someone who is interested in working for us for 2-4 weeks as a contractor instead of the normal interview process. But that usually doesn't work for the candidate.
For those wondering, we paid $50 an hour. It wasn't quite wage equivalent, but we felt it was reasonable to consider some of that "gap" as investment on the part of the applicant.
This was an effective method to screen out applicants who didn't have the basic coding skills to align with their stated resume experience. And there were a decent number of these.
We did further development project exercises later in the process that took about 15 hours. We paid the candidates for this time, even those that didn't pass. It was also an effective screening tool.
All our exercises were very "real world." In the candidates own development environment and having been given instructions on how to prepare. They also have access to whatever Internet resources they want while doing the exercises. If they can't do the exercises, they can't do the job.
I know there are mixed opinions on this and I feel for candidates who have to invest a ton of time in exercises like this. But I can't imagine trying to hire without visibility into how they execute relatively basic software development tasks.
I think employers can and should structure the process so the time investment is minimal upfront and only increases as both parties have gotten to know each other and want to proceed.