

Ask HN: How is it fair that companies ask candidates to spend hours on a task? - lukevella

Almost every job opportunity has a technical task attached to it, many of which require a significant amount of time to complete and some of which are open ended in such a way that they encourage candidates to spend as much time as possible to get an edge over the competition.<p>Companies say that they enjoy seeing candidates that have open source contributions, but what is the point if they end up being judged solely on their work on the task they are being asked to do for free?<p>It seems so wrong to me to ask people to spend so much of their time doing this work for what is at best a chance at a job offer.<p>Why is this acceptable?<p>To clarify, I am not completely against giving out tasks but asking people to spend 4+ hours is too much.
======
Bahamut
I strongly agree. I view it as highly disrespectful, especially since I have
more than enough open source work out on GitHub.

I also do not wish to burden candidates with that when I interview them. I
believe I am a good judge of character, and also a good judge of ability, so I
haven't felt the need to offer a project after a phone screen or in-person. I
do not even plan out the questions I ask except for having a loose set of
criteria I look for when I interview a candidate. It is much easier if the
conversation is fluid, as if between peers. That does not mean I won't ask
difficult questions - sometimes I do, but I ask them depending on how the
conversation goes and what the developer comes off as to me. My questions are
meant to gauge the candidate's skill level, and whether there is a good fit
for the company and candidate. I don't need to give the a super hard
brainteaser - that only serves to filter for the exceptional, and isn't an
efficient use of time. I don't need to give FizzBuzz - if I am that suspicious
of a candidate, I will cut the interview short, since within the first 5-10
minutes, I already have a general hypothesis formed that I am testing for.

I like to open up interviews with asking about the candidate to explain
his/her background. I will have read the resume beforehand, or read it while
the person is giving the overview, to see if the person misrepresented
anything on the resume or about his/her background. I ask about details about
some recent experiences, and if it is the technology that my company uses, I
ask for the candidate's views on the technology, including positives and
negatives. I shift over to questions about beliefs on how the candidate
approaches certain situations, or shift to the technical questions. I don't
require exactness in answers, but if a candidate has an exact correct answer,
it's a good sign. Similarly if I ask a trickier question and the candidate
figures out how to answer it optimally quickly, it's a huge positive - you
can't fake that sort of cognitive reaction.

Lastly, I save some time for the candidate to ask questions - even this is a
part of my evaluation process, because more senior candidates know what type
of questions to ask based on what they have seen in the industry.

For me, this has been enough for me to evaluate a candidate properly. Anything
like a project is excessive and unnecessary.

------
smt88
If you've gotten to know the company somewhat (several interviews that went
well), give them a counteroffer:

"I know how important it is to test my skills before hiring me, so I'd like to
propose an even more in-depth assessment: I'll work for you as a contractor
for two weeks. If your team likes my work, you can hire me as an employee."

I don't know if it would work, but if you really can't spare the time to do
assessments, it's worth a shot.

~~~
lukevella
I'd be much happier with that if companies were open to it. The only thing is
that this is one of the cases where it might hurt to ask. So it's a risky
approach.

~~~
avalaunch
If asking the company to respect the value of your time is going to cost you
the opportunity of working for said company than I wouldn't consider it a big
loss. Chances are if they don't respect the value of your time now they won't
later either, pushing you to work long hours, weekend hours, guilting you away
from taking vacation days, and so on.

------
taprun
I'd suggest that fairness is irrelevant. Businesses will demand as much as
they can. If great candidates stop applying to them because of their
ridiculous demands, they will either have to reduce their demands or hire only
mediocre candidates. If great candidates keep applying, they will continue to
be jerks.

This is simply a result of the way economics works. Voting with your feet is
the best way to stop it.

~~~
collyw
I had a phone interview recently, the first stage in the interview process.
They explained they used Hacker Rank, so I challenged them and asked them if
they found it was a good way to hire candidates, as its not likely to be like
the day work. (Didn't change anything).

In the end I couldn't be bothered filling it in.

I would say there was a 50/50% chance I would have done it successfully. Sure
I could study up and practice to make sure I passed, but I have been developer
for 12 years. I don't need to fart about with algorithm trivia when the stuff
I build is at a higher level for a different market.

I'll spend that time on my side project. At least I can use that again when
the next company asks to see an example of my work.

------
ArekDymalski
To give you a bit of perspective: in other industries, it's quite common that
Assessment Center sessions last around 6-8 hours (however, there are breaks
and lunch included) and it's not uncommon to see even 2-day assessments.

Is it fair? I'd say yes, if following 2 conditions are met: 1\. The method
(AC/task/exercise) is well designed to actually test the candidate's skills
and his/her performance is properly observed, measured, analyzed and assessed.
It's fair for the candidate, because the hiring decision is adequate. 2\.
After all this effort the candidate receives both a "thank you" and short
feedback about his/her performance.

Unfortunately these conditions aren't met quite often and that's not fair.

~~~
lukevella
I don't agree that using other industries as examples is a good defense. Just
because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right.

Obviously the more work a person puts into a task, the better you can assess
their ability. But when does a task become excessive. It seems that the limit
is being stretched thin.

------
MalcolmDiggs
As a candidate, I tend to ask that one of two conditions be met for these kind
of projects:

Either:

1\. It's open-source and I can show it/share it as I see fit in the future

or

2\. They pay me for my time.

I prefer #1 actually, and most companies will be okay with the open-source
thing, but will usually ask that you not share it publicly (on a github or
anything), so that other candidates can't find it. I like this option because
it gives me ammo the next time I'm asked to do a coding challenge ("Okay sure
I'll do it, but did I mention I'm already in talks with a few other companies
and have already finished their coding challenges? Here take a look! If these
don't show you what you need to know, I'll take your test too."

------
ApolloRising
I've been on both sides of this and if the task takes any more than 2 hours. I
offer an hourly rate that is reasonable and a well defined mini project that
would showcase the skills required for the job. This way no matter the outcome
hired or not the person does not feel unfairly treated and is always offered
feedback. I also ask them what type of work they love to do and note that for
a future project/hire that I may need in the future.

------
rsunder
Guess that will save time later if the candidate doesnt fit the role.

Instead keep a open project expectation, expected time to complete and get
that agreed.

------
loumf
The best companies use short assessments to make sure that the long one will
likely be successful.

------
kefka
I'd counter-offer with a wage appropriate for the hour for those "jobs".

~~~
lukevella
I'd be curious to hear if anyone has ever done this

