|
I was thinking exactly the same.
Fast google: https://codility.com/candidate-faq/
Looks like it is an online enviroment to solve programming tasks to prove your skills.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: What the hell is a Codility test?
 I actually read it the way the OP intended, codability. I did not see the misspelling until reading your post. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon, it's not a programming question..
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
It is a very good plan to take money from HR...
I did one to see how it is - prove nothing of your ability!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah man. I think if someone is technical they're not really needed. In the world we live in though, people who tend to hire technical people aren't really technical. So they need something to make them feel better about the choice.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It all depends on the situation. I used to date a doctor in Orange County when I first moved to Los Angeles, and when she changed jobs they'd fly her in and put her up in a hotel near the hospital being considered for the interview. The interview!! They didn't test her with a live on-site patient, etc. I was thinking damn we get short changed in tech.
However, the barrier to entry is much much lower in tech. Yes a great programmer has to study just as much as a doctor. But the barrier to entry is lower. We don't have to pay for medical school and go to it for 8 years. We basically just need a computer and an Internet connect and no life.
What does this mean for the market? It means there are a lot of people full of crap in the market place. Try hiring a few programmers and you'll see. They regurgitate something they read on MSDN and think they're pros now. Real talent is hard to find. Being a great programmer is still a valuable skill to have but you have to go through a lot of weeds. And so we have tests.
In my experiences if the tests are given by someone technical and friendly they are usually fun. I remember a buddy of mine from Florida who was my manager at the time. Super smart guy when it came to dealing with people and we'd joke around with the online test when screening new people. If they're given by someone that doesn't know a left mouse click from a right one then it's annoying and not even generally relevant. To top it off, if you generalize conceptual answers that shows you understand the whys instead of blanket memorization, they don't get it because they don't know tech.
I actually did an interview not too long ago where I was sent a JScript .NET test for a JavaScript position. I told them that's the wrong test. They changed it out to a JavaScript one and then I took that one. That didn't pan out despite me passing the test because it was amateur hour with these people, and I told them as such. But, if they're good at what they do then look at it like a chance to help show your stuff, to give you a marketing edge for the job.
That's where the industry is at right now, so you're just going to have to deal with it.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but ... There are some clowns out there (and they have people's ears) that go around saying you should hire 4 or 5 "low-ballers", and keep the one that produces the "best product".
The reasoning here being that by buying a "bunch" of cheap labor (versus one "expensive" professional), the "probability" of you getting what you wanted is increased because there are more "bodies" involved.
Clients "new" to freelancing are swallowing it.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
This goes beyond just coding. HR has adopted the "warm body" mentality. Get a body in, set them in front of a computer for a couple of hours of online training, and viola! Instant efficient worker! I abhor HR people in case you can't tell...
|
|
|
|
|
And they'll measure your keystrokes and mouse moves while taking snaps of your desktop and of you with your web cam.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it's fine if you want to hire drones but a real programmer solves problems none of which should involve writing complex code with a gun to your head...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I've taken several of those - if you've just left school you should be fine
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
The same advice for when you discover that the person you're dating is a narcissist. Run.
OK, why? Well first off, these tests, besides being irrelevant (like the way the Borg uses the word) are also fraught with errors and omissions (like Trump's world view) and tell you an important thing about the company -- they can't figure out how to do an interview and give you meaningful questions themselves, so instead they rely on a "test" which tells them actually nothing about your coding, problem solving, and communication skills. It's a good insight into the internal mess of the company.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you could be right. The recruiter called me for a phone interview. From the interview, it was obvious that she did not know anything about the job I was applying nor technical enough to interview me. Looked like she just asked me questions written by somebody else and then recorded my answers for somebody else to evaluate. She said that she would discuss my case with the hiring manager and she would be in touch within a week. Immediately after that, she sent me an evaluation on her performance. Of course, I rated perfect in all categories. After I submitted the evaluation form, she sent me a request to take the test. Did not seem to be very professional asking the candidate to take the test after the candidate submitted the evaluation form. If I could evaluate her again, I would have rated the opposite. I asked somebody working for the company what that is all above. He said that it was just bureaucracy and asked me not to take it personally. Looks like there is no choice. Either waste 3 hours to take the test or just give up that application.
|
|
|
|
|
No, really, tell us how you feel 
|
|
|
|
|
I recently took one as part of the sift process for a position with the UK Government.
Having never done one before, I prepared by doing a few of their on-line examples, and - to be honest - quite enjoyed doing them.
The test however had two tasks (but you were given plenty of time - 12 hours in my case) and they said they were looking for correctness, rather than speed of execution. The only really annoying aspect that didn't reflect real life is that when you finally submitted the code, it was tested and the result saved, but you weren't allowed to use their tests whilst writing the code, or see the results (or the tests used) once you had submitted the final version. This is fair enough I suppose, though unrealistic.
The two tasks were also things that you would almost never need to do in real life either: one was some really quite fiddly calculations with dates and days of the week, stuff which I haven't had to do since I extended the Borland C++ Date class to cope with UK and European dates and arithmetic thereon, despite a 40 year career in business software development!
Much to my surprise (I scored 100% in the first task, and 62% in the date related one: I missed one special case where the first of February in a non-leap year was a Monday - don't ask!), I passed the sift and have been asked for a second interview.
Here I will be expected to take part in a pair programming exercise (something else I've never done as such) - except that was over 6 weeks ago, and no appointment has been made, despite assurances that it will be from the firm undertaking the sift.
These tests are as unrealistic as the 'whiteboard' programming scenarios, but probably a reasonable way of filtering applicants from a large field. The fact that they still haven't come up with an appointment (they were looking for 39 people) makes me think that they haven't yet found that many, and probably that once they find 39 better than me, my interview will magically be cancelled!
One positive thing to come out of it though - it did demonstrate a way in which I could incorporate tests into a project I'm currently working on, which has proved very useful...
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
I had a bad experience with Codility, and I heard most candidates for this position performed worse than me. Two issues:
* The deadline was too short for completing all the excercises.
* The excercises felt like a mid term or final exam from an undergraduate degree subject, too abstract and low level.
So, grab your school books...
Darío
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of the programming interview is to find programmers you can work with successfully. The purpose of HR is to get the programmers skills at the lowest possible cost. These objectives are orthogonal and sadly have resulted in the modern version of the white board coding interview, the programmers test.
In my experience good programmers are ones that love programming and solving problems. If they are not working for you they are most likely working on a side project, reading or writing code or something else programming related. With them programming is not a job its something they are. These types of people hate programmer tests. Why?
Because they understand that the test has little or nothing to do with solving their current problem which is, "how do I get a job, preferably one I will like, where I get to do what I love doing."
The best way I have found to hire talented programmers is to sit down and just talk with them about programming. Good programmers will quickly warm to the subject and before you know it you will be talking about solving problems, new constructs, theory, developmental approaches and so on. You might even learn something new! Good programmers love to program and to talk about programming. They just don't like to waste time solving solved problems to which the solutions could be found in seconds with a simple Google search. You will learn more from a simple 10 minute conversation than days and days of these tests.
The argument always comes up in these discussions that we, "Need to filter out" those candidates that don't have the skills. Really? Are you telling me you can't tell within five minutes if the candidate does not have the skills? Is your time so valuable that you can't spare a couple of minutes on the phone to determine this? if so then maybe you should be focusing on that important work that you need to do and leave the hiring to someone else.
Kelly
|
|
|
|
|
Nice assessment. When conducting interviews, I used to spend 10-15 minutes talking to the candidate, then ask them to go to the white board and write a simple function [e.g., reverse a string]. Found a number of great candidates that way. One may love programming but if one cannot converse/discuss a [small] problem then one is likely to fail in a group setting.
|
|
|
|
|
NightPen wrote: Are you telling me you can't tell within five minutes if the candidate does not have the skills?
That's the problem...
we would, but most big companies where the departments are so specialized... the HR has no fvcking clue about technology beyond SmartPhone, Office and maybe a couple of things more. If you are lucky, the HR will be an advanced user, but still no programmer.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I've done many online coding assessments, mainly with multiple choice answers, and while they are a pretty poor way of assessing a job candidate vs. an original coding exercise, employers and HR love them, and passing them well has got me a few jobs in my +- 15 years .NET experience.
Even now, I've had one brief interview with an HR lady, she is busy vetting my CV, references, and criminal record check, but she told me as soon as that is done, I will do an online assessment, and if I do well, a one year contract is mine. No further interviews or any of the recruitment process crap.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I did one a few years ago. It totally sucked and was a waste of my time. I was presented with three problems and scored zero because my style is to do things right. I started into two of the three and ran out of time because I have the awful habit of thinking too much (the third problem was never going to fit into the [short] time allotted). Anyway, I write beautiful code and that company missed a good opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right - you have to write the code the way they want it written.
Codility and other online coding testing sites are proof that they're lazy and don't know how to hire engineers. I've seen many gross mistakes in problems and fail to see what value it really provides outside of stealing money from HR.
Seriously though - I just find a topic or two on their resume and drill down into it. I ask to provide a diagram of the system, go into design issues, problems they ran into, how they were resolved, etc. It's more effective and much harder to fake.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
-- Marcus Brigstocke, British Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
At one time, the PAT (Programmer Aptitude Test) was simply a variation of some of the IQ tests available then and now; emphasizing abstract thinking and lanuage comprehension.
These IMO were better for showing a candidate's "potential" than their ability to pass a canned test.
I think at one time people were hired for their potential; not past deeds; or that they're cheaper.
But with short-range thinking (and a disposable society), you don't need long-term potential.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
