this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1786 points (97.3% liked)

Work Reform

10030 readers
372 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] piexil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Coding tests are the fucking worst.

Almost never representative of the actual work and usually far more restrictive than the actual work too. (In that you can't search, might be watched, etc)

[โ€“] CoderKat@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I agree. It pains me that I have to ask them. The ones my company does are very restrictive and high pressure. I personally try to choose reasonable problems with realistic scenarios (especially when interviewing entry level folks). I also have lots of follow up questions that I like to think are well grounded on realism.

I personally give a complete pass for stuff like standard library functions and will outright tell the candidate about an available function if they're unsure what it's called or how its used. I'm testing problem solving and an understanding of language , fundamentals not their ability to memorize a standard library. I mean, heck, I can't begin to count how many times I've had to google "[language] sort list".

Honestly, it sucks to have to watch a candidate struggle. It's awkward and not fun. I want to see the candidate do well. And heck, if they can't do well, I want them to at least be able to make progress, because I know it would feel bad to feel like you bombed the interview. Sadly, the environment of tech interviews isn't conductive to that. They're stressful and sometimes perfectly qualified candidates do poorly simply because of nerves.