I'm an individual contributor, but I've helped conduct quite a few interviews at my current place (where we have coding tests) and in previous places (where we haven't had them).
I totally understand where you're coming from. The coding test I had to do at my current place took me few hours to do. The company is great, and I'm happy at the place, however, I would be lying if I didn't think twice when I got told I'd have to do a coding test after the initial screening. Certainly, I did feel insulted. The reason I ended up taking it was because it was very obviously just a test (i.e. they weren't trying to get free labour out of me). In the end, it all worked out, and I'm glad I did end up doing it.
On the flip side, sadly I've worked with a lot of people who just don't know how to code. Coding exercising aren't perfect either, but it certainly weeds out a whole lot of bad hires. I've worked with individuals who have essentially become "the documentation person". This is fine if you're in an enterprise, but in a small 3/4 person team, that one person holds back the rest a lot.
I think having a _set_ coding exercise that doesn't get free labour out of the candidate, it can help a lot towards having a stronger team. As a candidate, do be careful whose coding exercise you end up doing. There are still quite a few companies that try to get free labour out of candidates.
So yes, I think it is insulting unfortunately, but it is a necessary evil to build better teams, and avoid those who are, quite frankly, lying and are going to hold the team back.
> The coding test I had to do at my current place took me few hours to do.
> The reason I ended up taking it was because it was very obviously just a test (i.e. they weren't trying to get free labour out of me).
But it still takes the same amount of my work.
Let's say I'm looking for a new job at a time when I still have an old one. I send out 30 resumes. I get 10 responses that want me to take a coding test, and each one takes me 4 hours. That's 40 hours, at a time when I already have a job, and while I'm still trying to have a life.
So, no. Just no. I won't take your multi-hour take-home coding test. I mean, if one of the places was my dream job, I might for that one. But if you're a run-of-the-mill employer? No.
I totally agree, and you should be selective with take home tests. I do very few and the potential role would really have to be worth my time if I were to get hired. I don't believe dream jobs exist. I see a jobs as a means to an end. It's a tool for me to live my life the way I want to live it.
I totally understand where you're coming from. The coding test I had to do at my current place took me few hours to do. The company is great, and I'm happy at the place, however, I would be lying if I didn't think twice when I got told I'd have to do a coding test after the initial screening. Certainly, I did feel insulted. The reason I ended up taking it was because it was very obviously just a test (i.e. they weren't trying to get free labour out of me). In the end, it all worked out, and I'm glad I did end up doing it.
On the flip side, sadly I've worked with a lot of people who just don't know how to code. Coding exercising aren't perfect either, but it certainly weeds out a whole lot of bad hires. I've worked with individuals who have essentially become "the documentation person". This is fine if you're in an enterprise, but in a small 3/4 person team, that one person holds back the rest a lot.
I think having a _set_ coding exercise that doesn't get free labour out of the candidate, it can help a lot towards having a stronger team. As a candidate, do be careful whose coding exercise you end up doing. There are still quite a few companies that try to get free labour out of candidates.
So yes, I think it is insulting unfortunately, but it is a necessary evil to build better teams, and avoid those who are, quite frankly, lying and are going to hold the team back.