@zachklipp @jessewilson

> At my non-fictional job we do take-home programming assignments; they’re much more predictive of programming ability.

We hope. Is anyone actually tracking that?

@rjrjr @jessewilson

I've read they're also more biased for people who have the spare time to actually _do_ a take-home assignment. Which is why, at least the last I heard, Square gives candidates a choice.

But it's also depressing that apparently the only way to get decent signal on a candidate is to ask them to do an unpaid side hustle.

@zachklipp @rjrjr @jessewilson I don't like take homes for this reason, they are often a measure of how much extra time the candidate had available, which biases against, e.g., people with young children.

@zachklipp @rjrjr @jessewilson But every interview process has incidental bias against something, and the problem of defining objective long-term success metrics let alone predicting them based on a short interview process is close to impossible, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@robd @zachklipp @jessewilson I feel good that we're offering candidates any kind of choice in the whole process. I hope that on balance we're opening doors. I can think of specific, _very_ senior individuals who simply can't negotiate our traditional on-site pairing sessions.

@rjrjr @zachklipp @jessewilson I like the idea of giving candidates a choice. (I don't think we were doing this when I was last at Square.) Early in my career I would have jumped on a take home, but now the rigid time box of an onsite sounds much more appealing.

Does it cause apples-to-oranges problems when comparing candidates? Or just give offers to any number of people who clear the bar?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit