

Ask HN:Thoughts on written tests for interviews.  - probinso

Ask HN:Thoughts on written tests for interviews.<p>I have been job hunting for a while, had many interviews, and have recently found an acceptable end.<p>One thing that I was very not prepared for as a possible interview environment was &#x27;written tests.&#x27;<p>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.<p>-- The first company had me fill a &#x27;mechanical aptitude&#x27; multiple choice test (1 hour)
-- The second company had me fill a written test on my knowledge of the python programming language (2 hour)<p>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.<p>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.<p>Any input to this as an interview mechanism (on either side) would be very much appreciated.
======
josephschmoe
I've never heard of this. If someone is making you take a two hour test, you
should probably just walk away from the interview. They clearly have no value
of your time.

------
natdempk
What did the python test consist of, if you don't mind sharing? I'm curious as
I've never heard of this before...

------
codezero
Care to say which companies do these tests?

~~~
probinso
Both were in Seattle

One 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.

~~~
codezero
I've heard of the written psych type of exams before. I don't think they're
great, but as with any interview method, it's something of a cargo cult and
folks stick to it.

~~~
tostitos1979
I've never experienced that but have had friends who have. The psyche test as
well as the technical exam. These were corps in Toronto, Canada.

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.

~~~
RogerL
I upvoted this.

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.

~~~
tostitos1979
I think this started with Microsoft and Google. Before Google, Microsoft was
infamous for being one of the few places in tech having a 1 day interview.
They flew you out to Seattle and gave you brain teasers. People realized the
brain teasers didn't work and they just transformed into white board coding
interviews. But that was just Microsoft. Then, Google came on the scenes and
started paying more than Microsoft. I remember starting salaries jumping from
60K to 80K around 2004-2005. That was likely a direct result of Google. At the
same time, Google copied the Microsoft hiring process, which was not the
industry average to begin with. In fact, they made it harder. The whole ...
hire people smarter than you crap started. The Google anti-interview loop was
born (the hypothesis is that every employee at Google has a set of 5 people
who, if they were on their interview loop, would reject the employee for their
current job). People whose first jobs were around 2004 think this is the way
it should be for everyone. And then, we are in our current situation where
startups can't find anyone qualified to hire and job seekers find it
impossible to get employed.

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.

