I contend that if you test me you will get a false negative. Becase you are testing me on what you think I should know which is a reflection of your strengths not mine.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps you might like the company/opportunity even though you're given an exam?
Yes it has, the problem is that I now belive that they don't know how to hire and I will be working with a group of people that know trivia but may not know how to deliver. As such it will fall on me to deliver becase their hiring process has not shown an ephisis on selecting people that can deliver.
the interviewer wants to make sure that you truly are capable of performing the way you represent yourself on paper.
I feel that, my and others capibilities are best reflected in what I have already done. We don't ask a other professionals to take test we look at their history and accomplishments.
But what if you weren't a good coder, and only a good talker?
A good talker can BS someone with no knowledge of the field. They are not going to be able to BS their way through an entire code base. A skilled technical person will catch on.
I don't think companies that do test are terrible I just think their interview process is lacking as such it can leave me holding the bag with long hours becase they cannot identify other good talent. It's from experience that I have come to the conclusion that hireing via test is a useless filter, because at one point in time I was the worst offender. I used to use elite code trick questions, abstract questions and code tests and I found not only where they ineffective but I was actually driving the best individuals away, due to what they perceived as arrogance on the part of my orginizarion. Developers have little tolarance for things that seem inefficient and pointless. It took me a while to learn that lesson.
They are not going to be able to BS their way through an entire code base.
The problem is that a large number of coders out there simply do not have a project they can show an interviewer. This can be for a number of reasons such as only programming at work or not having much free time. The fact a coder has a project to walk someone through does not imply they are a good coder, so why would a company tailor their interview process to the minority of interview candidates out there who do have a sizable project they can demo?
When I sign up with a company I always get the stipulation that I can use the code for demonstration purposes, that the code will never leave my machine but that I can use it for demonstration purposes. Short of working on some top secret project I would not agree to anything else, not being able to show previous work in this industry is like an artist not being able to show commercial work as their portfolio.
The fact a coder has a project to walk someone through does not imply they are a good coder
No but it is an indication of their work, because it is sitting right there in front of you. Just because they have a project does not mean that it is good, but that is up to the interviewer to decide. If you can look at the code base, then the interviewer should be able to determine if it is well built or not. If they cannot, then I would question whether they should be the one conducting the interview.
so why would a company tailor their interview process to the minority of interview candidates out there who do have a sizable project they can demo
I personally feel that someone looking for a senior developer role should have something that they can demo, they have been in the business for 5 to 10 years, there should be something that they can run on their machine to demonstrate their abilities. Now for a junior developer, I agree they may not have something to demo, but for a junior role I assume a blank slate and look for totally different values. Specifically I look for passion and eagerness to learn, again a test is not going to tell me that.
Good point doing the fancy stuff is easy making it work 24/7 and do all the nasty fiddly little bits you gloss over is the hard stuff.
You want to be sure the figures add up when you do your first million pound month when the CTO (i think that Vint was his boss at the time) nudges you and says "this had better be right or we are both out of a job"
of course this was back 1983 so that is say $4,250,000 in today's money.
I contend that if you test me you will get a false negative. Becase you are testing me on what you think I should know which is a reflection of your strengths not mine.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps you might like the company/opportunity even though you're given an exam?
Yes it has, the problem is that I now belive that they don't know how to hire and I will be working with a group of people that know trivia but may not know how to deliver. As such it will fall on me to deliver becase their hiring process has not shown an ephisis on selecting people that can deliver.
the interviewer wants to make sure that you truly are capable of performing the way you represent yourself on paper.
I feel that, my and others capibilities are best reflected in what I have already done. We don't ask a other professionals to take test we look at their history and accomplishments.
But what if you weren't a good coder, and only a good talker?
A good talker can BS someone with no knowledge of the field. They are not going to be able to BS their way through an entire code base. A skilled technical person will catch on.
I don't think companies that do test are terrible I just think their interview process is lacking as such it can leave me holding the bag with long hours becase they cannot identify other good talent. It's from experience that I have come to the conclusion that hireing via test is a useless filter, because at one point in time I was the worst offender. I used to use elite code trick questions, abstract questions and code tests and I found not only where they ineffective but I was actually driving the best individuals away, due to what they perceived as arrogance on the part of my orginizarion. Developers have little tolarance for things that seem inefficient and pointless. It took me a while to learn that lesson.