David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:33:15PM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> That's interesting. From Perl Cert posts I've read on LPM and Perl Monks >>> a lot of people don't rate Brainbench tests. The main argument being >>> that the tests are based on memory of functions and their parameters, as >>> opposed to whether you can actually write code. >>> >> I haven't read the posts so was wondering if they had an opinion on >> how you would test whether someone could write code? I can see that's >> kinda testable in an interview but doing it in a certifiable way seems >> tough to me. >> > > Here at $work we test people by having them come in for a programming > test. We give them an hour and a half with perl and an interwebnet > connection to solve as much as they can of a fairly open-ended problem. > The problem tests knowledge of algorithms and data structures, and the > really good people get enough done that they can start on optimising > their code. >
Do you test everyone who applies? If not what criteria do you use to choose which ones you test? How many do you generally end up testing? How long would you say on average this takes to fill one position? (how long in hours of your time, not how long from job advert) Sorry about all the questions :) Lyle _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
