|
'cwpt in my case it was the Agency setting the test not the employer - presumably because the agency staff are as thick as a three week old thickshake and wouldn't know a line of C# from a pile of pooh.
I igenuinely had someone from an IT recruitment agency recently ask me if I knew UB .Net
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point?
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
danialgibson wrote: Because they don't know how to tell a good developer from a bad developer. If you take their test and fail then you're bad (which is not correct but is they way they'd see it).
That's not all there is to it, see below:
danialgibson wrote: If you want to work at this company then you'd probably be ok taking the test, however meaningless it is. If you don't really care for the company then don't apply for the position (and thus the test actually did serve a purpose).
Quote Selected Text
Absolutely 
We always ask for sample code from prospective developers, nothing demanding.*
There are several objectives behind it:
1) Establish whether the applicant can actually write code/analyse & solve a problem (I've encountered many people with impressive-looking CV's who can't).
2) Give us a glimpse of their thought processes (you'd be surprised how creative some people can be on the simplest of tasks, some make mountains out of molehills, some have surprised & impressed with how simply & elegantly they solve an already simple task).
3) Determine the applicant's level of motivation/enthusiasm (we want motivated people who take an interest in what we do, if they're not motivated enough to perform a very simple task to get the job, they're not likely to be motivated to put much into their work).
4) Eliminate anyone who can't follow simple instructions (the vast majority of applicants simply see a job ad & automatically send off their CV without taking the time to consider where they're applying to or what they'll be doing if they actually get the job - we don't want to hire mindless automatons, or waste our time interviewing them).
* For a task where the typical solution was less than 40 lines of code (including declarations & comments), we had one response with "... Given that this task will require a fair amount of work ... assuming that I meet or exceed your criteria ...".
My response to that was: If you think this task requires a "fair amount of work", I can guarantee that you do not meet, let alone exceed, our criteria.
T-Mac-Oz
"When I'm ruler of the universe ... I'm working on it, I'm working on it. I'm just as frustrated as you are. It turns out to be a non-trivial problem." - Linus Torvalds
|
|
|
|
|
They're probably trying to cull out the wannabes early. Why are you concerned? You know you smoked it, else why would you apply for a senior position? At the worst, your code probably made the rest of the applicants look like idiots. Look on the bright side; if you don't happen to get an offer, you can always bill the agency for two hours of coding.
I know it's insulting, an assault on your integrity. But try to see it from their side. Agencies - well, headhunter tribes - are a dime a dozen. Anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves recruiting specialists, and probably get away with it. People who work in HR are not the sharpest tools in the drawer, as we all know. One way to become recognized as a credible source is to pre-screen applicants so that the client never sees the obvious losers that would be pounding on the door if they resorted to the classified ads. Visit the VB forum for examples.
I've been asked to take a test a couple of times, and I don't resent it. I know from personal experience that there are some excellent fakes out there. I had one when I was with Northrop, when I was tasked to hire 120 engineers in 30 days - yes, they still believe in the 40 ships theory... The guy knew all the buzzwords, and was current on all the latest trade magazines. He was a self-starting go-getter who could have been a valuable asset to our team. So I hired him. After two months he hadn't drawn a single line on a piece of paper, so I did some digging. The university he listed on his application as the grantor of his BSEE never heard of him. The high school he graduated from, the same. So I sat him down for a talk.
To his credit, he didn't deny his lies. He always wanted to be an engineer, but never had the chance to obtain the education that serves as a foundation for us all - a degree in engineering doesn't make one an engineer, but it is a license to begin learning engineering. I had to let him go, but I would have happily written a letter of recommendation to any school of engineering for him. What balls!
The point of all that is that we can all be fooled, and there are some excellent phonies in this world. It's not unreasonable for an agency to ask for a small demonstration of your ability before they risk their reputation recommending you to their client.
I wish you luck, and hope for the best outcome for you.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
|
I personally dont mind taking a test, but the things some of the clients ask you to do within a given timeframe can be completely befuddling. I had an interview for senior developer at this bank - one of the questions they asked was for me to write a sudoku puzzle solver!!! i dont even plat sudoku! 
No one knows the things of a man save the spirit of that man, likewise no one knows the things of God save the Spirit of God whom we have received. He who is joined to the Lord, is ONE Spirit with him(Jesus) - 1Cor 2:10-16 & 6:17
|
|
|
|
|
What's as bad is when the head hunter doesn't know sh*t from Shinola. I'm a technical writer who started when strings of ones and zeros were considered a high order language, and I even have a couple of books and papers on SDLC documentation.
Anyway, Ms. ShitForBrains calls me to ask if I've ever documented widgets and do I have experience with APIs. She doesn't know what either is, and after I explain it to her, she decides I can't do it and doesn't submit my CV.
She's probably right. There is a difference in documenting the stability augmentation system for the space shuttle and some animation for yet another social networking system.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
Jay Reidy wrote: Anyway, Ms. ShitForBrains calls me to ask if I've ever documented widgets and do I have experience with APIs. She doesn't know what either is, and after I explain it to her, she decides I can't do it and doesn't submit my CV.
Yes, we all come across this - unfortunately. 
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
We're doing a 'stupid' test too.
Why? Because I don't want to spend several weeks or months cleaning someone else's mess.
We've had a lot of so called 'professionals' coming in who can't program for ****.  .
But a half hour coding excersize should be enough though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of being repetitive, though, if you had exlained to teh thick one how he would be fired if he couldn't do the job, hopefully he would think twice.
sure, there are bound to be exceptions, but I don't believe a test is the right way to go - except maybe for straight junior developer positions - even then the 'bring an example of your code and explain your thinking' is worth its weight.
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point?
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Father Christmas wrote: if you had exlained to teh thick one how he would be fired if he couldn't do the job, hopefully he would think twice.
Yeah, I had a manager like that. I was on a contract at a company where my initial assignment finished. I was just packing my stuff to leave when another manager comes across and says "Hey would you like another six weeks work on another project?" I said yes. I then had an informal and friendly interview which was more just a chat. He then said that although they do have a standard technical test he personally never bothered with it for contractors. His philosophy was that if they're not up to speed within the week he just sacks them.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to tech tests but many of them are poor IMO. But I detest having tech tests delivered via the agency rather than at the employer.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin McFarlane wrote: But I detest having tech tests delivered via the agency rather than at the employer.
Fair enough too. We ask for code samples but wouldn't dream of having a recruitment agency evaluate them. There's enough "programmers" out there who can't write code, I can't imagine why anyone would think a recruitment agent would have the ability to distinguish good code from bad.
T-Mac-Oz
"When I'm ruler of the universe ... I'm working on it, I'm working on it. I'm just as frustrated as you are. It turns out to be a non-trivial problem." - Linus Torvalds
|
|
|
|
|
Father Christmas wrote: Why oh why do recruitment agancies insist on stupid tests?
It's the value they add. (add fingerquotes liberally)
I'd send you a questionnaire first. And I'd have you write code during the interview.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't have thought you of all people would need a job this time of year! Or are you looking for a second job to fill that awkward gap between December 26th and December 24th?
Apathy Rules - I suppose...
Its not the things you fear that come to get you but all the things that you don't expect
|
|
|
|
|
Steve_pqr wrote: Or are you looking for a second job to fill that awkward gap between December 26th and December 24th
Well it is 363 days long...
|
|
|
|
|
Programming tests are crucial when hiring programmers IMHO. We have recently been hiring and the simple coding tests really sorted the wheat from the chaff. You'd be amazed at home many 'experienced' developers are actually winging it (or have overplayed their language skills. We had a few obvious Java types applying for C++ jobs and they floundered on the coding and language tests).
We make candidates write a couple of small C++ functions using a pen and paper. We also ask a bunch of questions about the C++ language, and show them a some sample code that is riddled with both syntax and logic errors and ask them to find as many as they can in a set time.
If I was applying for a programming job then I would expect to write code in the interview. If I was bidding to paint a portrait of your family then you'd want to see examples of my work yes? How is coding any different?
|
|
|
|
|
So, you're an artist. I call you up and ask you to come over and paint my family.
You arrive to ggive me a quote, perhaps, and to look for a suitable setting for the portrait.
I know the painting will be done over a period of three or four weeks, in several stages (initial sketches, possibly some photos as the kids will fidget so) then....
"Oh, before you go, just paint a quick portrait of me, will you - you've got 60 minutes, because there's another three artists coming later to quote too."
still want the job?
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point?
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I'd still want the job! Your problem with coding tests is totally lost on me and as an employer and someone who carries out many interviews they are essential for weeding out people that just aren't up to scratch. We're not talking about sitting people down to write a fully-fledged application, but asking them to code simple functions that, for example, will test their knowledge of pointer arithmetic, linked lists, memory management, etc. etc.
I really don't see why you have such an issue with this. What are you scared of? Your an experienced developer so a coding test should be water off a ducks back? I bet you crushed the competition.
I am with Joel Spolsky on this one. Candidates MUST write code in interviews because, sadly, people lie on their CVs and recruitment agencies will push people to apply for jobs they are not fully qualified for.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html[^]
And as I said before, I wouldn't expect to go for a programming interview without writing some code - be it on a whiteboard or sat in front of Visual Studio for 30 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Caldecott wrote: show them a some sample code that is riddled with both syntax and logic errors
I disagree with testing for syntax errors. It's quite easy to see what you want to see, even though you know what the correct syntax is. Plus in real life the compiler will pick them up. Better to just stick with analysing logic errors.
Also, IMO many (or even most) tech tests are poor tools for identifying competent programmers. I'm thinking more of the "trivial pursuits" type questions.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
What do you call 30,000 recruiters at the bottom of the ocean?
> A good start!
Mac
|
|
|
|
|
How do i believe that you are developing for 30 yrs? Well you may have several documents to prove that but I know you are a tech guy so those could be home made. And ah! I can phone the company. Then you have some contacts there. And your portfolio, well our cleaner guy can copy all the software and website we made and go to a company and say I have done them. Were you stealing the projects to build your portfolio?
You should know that every company get to know a person is hire able by asking him some basic question or getting referred by someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - so get my resume, and assume it is true (trust).
ask me some questions about it, about my experience, about projects I've worked on etc.
You shouldn't have to check if I am lying - if I am stupid enough to accept the position when I can't do the job, then O will be sacked - an inconvenience to you, but a potential disaster for an employee.
where did all this mistrust come from?
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point?
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
For an experienced developer I think that is a naive attitude. People lie on their CVs all the time - this isn't anything new - some people will dress up anything to make themselves look better. Recruitment agencies don't help as I'm sure they encourage people to apply for jobs they are not fully-qualified for - any chance for their percentage.
If I interview you and it turns out you are not suitable then not only is it a waste of everyone's time and my company's money, it makes me look stupid - it makes me look like I cannot weed out a crap programmer from a good one. Let alone the damage you could wreak before the penny drops that you aren't up to the task. Well, coding tests are _one_ way to avoid this, and like it or not, they have their place. I know companies who have spent a long time and a lot of cash cleaning up after a sh*tty programmer who churned out crap before anyone noticed what was happening.
I could tell you some stories about people I've interviewed with CVs that are littered with first class qualifications and claims of industrial-strength C++ experience, but when push comes to shove they just cannot cut the mustard - thanks to a combination of language, logic and coding tests.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Caldecott wrote: Recruitment agencies don't help as I'm sure they encourage people to apply for jobs they are not fully-qualified for
True - and again if you read my original post (and the subject) I was talking about a test set BY THE AGENCY - and we're note talking a trivial 'write a function to sort an array' but an OO Application to perform weighted searching of web pages.
Rob Caldecott wrote: If I interview you and it turns out you are not suitable then not only is it a waste of everyone's time and my company's money, it makes me look stupid
So you hire everyone you interview? Maybe you are stupid 
Rob Caldecott wrote: I know companies who have spent a long time and a lot of cash cleaning up after a sh***y programmer who churned out crap before anyone noticed what was happening.
These are bad companies who are obviously not doing code reviews - getting around the fact that our internal processes are poor by setting programming tests at interview?
Rob Caldecott wrote: could tell you some stories about people I've interviewed with CVs that are littered with first class qualifications and claims of industrial-strength C++ experience, but when push comes to shove they just cannot cut the mustard - thanks to a combination of language, logic and coding tests.
So you don't actualy know they couldn't cut the proverbial mustard - just that they couldn't do the tests?
And yes, sure, I'm playing devil's advocate a little here - it IS possible to include sensible tests at interview - someone pointed here http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html[^] an his coding tests (and more importantly the way he handles the process) would be fine.
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point?
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Father Christmas wrote: if I am stupid enough to accept the position when I can't do the job, then O will be sacked - an inconvenience to you, but a potential disaster for an employee.
An employee taking on a job they know quite well they are under-qualified for, gets a minimum of about 6 weeks income at a level they have not earned and also likely plenty of warning/clues that it's not going to last (yes, employment contracts with a probationary period still include minimum termination notice clauses). Unless the employee ruins their own reputation by touting what they've gotten away with, where's the disaster?
On the other hand, an employer defrauded in this manner has already made a massive investment:
the time taken by business management & the development team (HR goes without saying, but costs more if - e.g. in small business - HR is an auxiliary function of management):
1) To evaluate CVs
2) Interviews
3) Post Interview analysis
4) as many iterations of 2) & 3) as necessary to select the best candidate(s)
5) Induction
6) Ramp-up training
7) The wages of the unacceptable employee over the probationary period.
For the right employee(s), it's a good investment. For the wrong one(s), that's a disaster. The original investment is lost and the whole cycle begins again with all the same risks and expenses (sure there are CV's still on file from round 1 but someone who is still on the market 3 months later - typical probation - is likely not a good choice either). In addition, while the advertised role remains unfilled, the development team is understaffed, resulting in overtime costs &/or project overrun.
Sure there can be other reasons for a hire not working out, but an employer that doesn't take every possible step to ensure that the candidate(s) it hires can perform the work as expected is a huge risk-taker and an employer I would bet on going out of business sooner or later.
T-Mac-Oz
"When I'm ruler of the universe ... I'm working on it, I'm working on it. I'm just as frustrated as you are. It turns out to be a non-trivial problem." - Linus Torvalds
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the world of recruitment.
A colleague of mine recently did a 4-hour dev exercise for an agent after initially refusing. After doing he 4 hours he just described the rest of the exercise. Not heard a word from the agent.
In the past I've done agency tests of this sort and heard nowt back. These days I only ever do short tests over the phone. But in general getting the agency to test candidates in this way is lazy, poor and unprofessional. (OK, multiple choice tests via the agency are just about acceptable.)
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
A Merry Christmas to All!