on 2008-04-14 15:37 Jake McGraw said the following:
I wasn't out to dissuade anyone from utilizing some kind of pseudo
code testing, I'm just trying to offer an alternative point of view,
the receiving end of interviews (interviewee if you will).

Certainly your viewpoint is valid, and valued.

In my, admittedly limited experience, I've found company interviews
that start, contain, or end with, "Hi! Here's a computer / piece of
paper, you'll have 45 minutes to complete this exercise consisting
almost entirely of php.net/[insert function name here]", represents a
company on the path to fail, one which I ended up in because I didn't
know any better, two I rejected offers from.

Yes, well, that's NOT what we're talking about. But those companies do exist, and it behooves you to understand what they're thinking. And also consider the whole fizzbuzz (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000781.html) problem.

Here's my point of view: if you (as a recruiter) can come up with
nothing better than a rehash of references and a test of memorization
as the gateway for a new hire, then what kind of quality can I expect
in the rest of the company? Just as everyone here is putting the

Well, gee, it could be that the HR guy is somewhat divorced from the actual development team; or that he's the first gateway in; or that he's a recruiter from a firm and not the actual principal at all, and uses the results for many of his clients!

emphasis on finding the right candidate, weeding out the weak ones,
I'd like to offer the idea that maybe each candidate is trying to find
the right company, and that puts you (the interviewer) on the spot.

That's all well and good from both sides: if you wouldn't like it here, it's far more likely you'll spend your time looking for your next position. I always open the floor to questions from the interviewee; what he/she *asks* us is often about as enlightening as how he/she answers us.

I'm not trying to leave you with the impression that Millennials are
ingrates (compared to what, Gen-Xers?), but that there are many
options available to us, applying for a job is trivial thanks to the
internet/head hunters, and supply (of us) is limited. I think that you

In fact, the triviality of application is a sword that cuts both ways: because of it, people have had to develop these semi-automated methods of separating wheat from chaff because so many people use scattershot methods of applying for positions, rather than apply for something appropriate.

would be doing your company a disservice if you didn't consider this
before giving a candidate a test that makes them reconsider their
choice to apply (or even showup) by insulting their intelligence.

I, personally, have told recruiters and/or hiring managers: "I don't take written tests" when I applied for positions. At that time, at my stage in life, if I wasn't talking to a principal, or my CV didn't stand on its own, I could pass on the job. That was my decision, and I'm sure that I missed out on a few good opportunities. Maybe I was just being a prima donna. However, I paid my dues a few times, and I've got the references to back myself up, so I can take that chance.

**HOWEVER**, were I applying for some entry-level position, I'd expect to be tested on the basics, perhaps *even with a rudimentary written test*, and that any company that DIDN'T was showing lack of due diligence (read: malfeasance). The industry is rife with these stories: dailywtf posts them almost daily ("Tales from the Interview"), _Peopleware_ devotes a whole chapter to it ("Audition").

The written test that André originally posted was flawed in implementation, but totally sound in theory. It merely needed refining (and maybe not even that much). Remember: it is meant as a very very gross filter, just to totally weed out the completely incompetent who make it past your HR department or cursory scan at a CV.

I said it before and I'll reiterate it: yes, doing this kind of pre-testing might make me miss out on hiring the next RMS or Joel Spolsky, but I have to weigh that against other very compelling needs (like if I spend two days interviewing only 5 candidates, I have lots two days of other work that I need to do for clients, etc.).

p.s. top-posting is nasty.

- jake

//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman        [EMAIL PROTECTED]     www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
_______________________________________________
New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
http://www.nyphpcon.com

Show Your Participation in New York PHP
http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php

Reply via email to