They test for algorithmic skill rather than the ability to write code.Companies need the scores from assessments to be significant, and the easiest way to do this to use trick questions on the assessments.
Only a fraction of developers can do well on these tests.As an interviewer, it is very easy to forget how stressful the interview setting is for the interviewee.
Theyâre too big an askAsking the candidate to spend more than 60 minutes on a coding test before youâve spent any time is unfair.When you use a 3-hour coding test it defeats the purpose of automation, because while the hiring manager has nothing to lose, the candidate now needs to spend more time on it than they would have for a video/ in-person interview.The longer your assessment, the lower the test-taking rate will be3.
Itâs harder to code in an unfamiliar environmentMost developers have a preference of IDE (integrated development environment) that theyâve customized in a way that helps them write code seamlessly.
This is especially true when the test requires the use of not just a programming language in a simple code editor but instead is testing for front-end/ backend code framework capabilities.Developers often challenge the validity of coding tests/ assessments because of these and other reasons and understandably so.So, should we skip coding tests altogether?That is not an option.
Youâre in good hands if:Your test-taking rate > 70%.The average time to complete the assessment is between 45-75 minutes.When you ask candidates for their feedback during in-person interviews, they have good things to say about their experience giving the assessment.Hiring managers are happy with the quality of candidates that are being forwarded to in-person rounds.If your current solution does not satisfy these criteria, you might be missing out on strong candidates for your team.
They test for algorithmic skill rather than the ability to write code.Companies need the scores from assessments to be significant, and the easiest way to do this to use trick questions on the assessments.
Only a fraction of developers can do well on these tests.As an interviewer, it is very easy to forget how stressful the interview setting is for the interviewee.
Theyâre too big an askAsking the candidate to spend more than 60 minutes on a coding test before youâve spent any time is unfair.When you use a 3-hour coding test it defeats the purpose of automation, because while the hiring manager has nothing to lose, the candidate now needs to spend more time on it than they would have for a video/ in-person interview.The longer your assessment, the lower the test-taking rate will be3.
Itâs harder to code in an unfamiliar environmentMost developers have a preference of IDE (integrated development environment) that theyâve customized in a way that helps them write code seamlessly.
This is especially true when the test requires the use of not just a programming language in a simple code editor but instead is testing for front-end/ backend code framework capabilities.Developers often challenge the validity of coding tests/ assessments because of these and other reasons and understandably so.So, should we skip coding tests altogether?That is not an option.
Youâre in good hands if:Your test-taking rate > 70%.The average time to complete the assessment is between 45-75 minutes.When you ask candidates for their feedback during in-person interviews, they have good things to say about their experience giving the assessment.Hiring managers are happy with the quality of candidates that are being forwarded to in-person rounds.If your current solution does not satisfy these criteria, you might be missing out on strong candidates for your team.