Ask HN:Thoughts on written tests for interviews.
I have been job hunting for a while, had many interviews, and have recently found an acceptable end.
One thing that I was very not prepared for as a possible interview environment was 'written tests.'
During my in person interviews at two of the companies that I perused I was asked to sit down, in a quiet room, and take a test.
-- The first company had me fill a 'mechanical aptitude' multiple choice test (1 hour) -- The second company had me fill a written test on my knowledge of the python programming language (2 hour)
I had never heard of this as an interviewing mechanism. At the time of leaving both companies was frankly quite displeased about the experience. I felt they were wasting my time.
Looking back at it, my position may have been a bit egotistical; but I still believe that the goals of these tests could easily be met by an at-home coding sample.
Any input to this as an interview mechanism (on either side) would be very much appreciated.
8 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] threadOne builds and designs Scanning Electron Microscopes
The other provides tools for supporting/maintaining self organizing networks over cellular communication towers.
I don't plan on naming them directly, but, neither had me sign an NDA for the interview process.
There are days where I feel incredibly lucky to have a career in tech/software. When I think about the interview process, those good vibes disappear. I started my career at the point where talking tech with the interviewer for 30-45 mins got you the job. I think back in those days, software wasn't as sexy. So, none of this need to get rid of the guy who read programming in 24 hours. Things have gotten overboard in my humble opinion. Tech has gotten broad. So very broad. Yet, we expect candidates to know the littlest details. I've been up and down the stack ... frankly, I've probably forgotten more than I know right now.
One thing people mistaken is that startups have a lower bar when it comes to technical interviews. I mean, the big, faceless corp has HR people administering tests with scantron. How can the interview process be worse? Well .. pretty much every start up I've spoken to has disappointed me. Multiple road interviews, homework assignments, code while we watch you type. So much soul sucking :(
I miss the good old days.
I started in 1988. Interviews were like you said, and I absolutely do not see any difference in the quality of hires today as back then. And, how could I? It's the same population of skills, distributed across companies (okay, that is too hand wavey, it assumes everyone is employed, that today's high salaries do not attract posers, but still).
My first job was to generate statistics and otherwise mine data for cancer for the government (IOW, rather important to be able to do what you are asked to do). That interview lasted about 1 hour, and I was made a verbal offer on the spot. That was their style, and the result were just as good (better, I'd actually argue), then any "go read a CS book for a month and practice for your multi-round whiteboard" style of interview.
If you can't measure me in about an hour, you have a problem. A more senior role might require more,because you'll want to know not only my coding, but how I might run a team, run a project, interact with clients, and so on. Call it 2-3 hours.
I think what this does is lower programmer mobility and encourage more people to do startups. I don't like the first result, but I do like the second.