I disagree. Coding challenges that take a few hours are a great way to showcase your skill set in a number of areas. Asking for clarification, finding inconsistencies in the prompt if any exist, and commenting code to show that you are thinking beyond "making it work" separate you from others very quickly. Ask for feedback once you complete and you have very cheaply created yet another value proposition for yourself as a candidate. That said, if it's the very first step and not the very last step in an interviewing process, then that makes little sense on both sides. All of this is contextual, of course, but if you're complaining about something that takes you 4 hours, then consider that 4 hours in light of something like a 40% chance of increasing your salary by a dollar amount, say $4000 per year. If you're staying one year, the EV of that coding challenge is $1600 and your hourly is $400. I do not understand how that is something to avoid.
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
It's neither right or wrong, it's an ethical question. I believe that "candidate experience" should not be just a buzzword but a reality. I believe companies should strive to not waste the time of even the candidates that end up not hiring.
Just to clarify, here I'm talking about coding challenge like "create a mobile app that will do xxx respecting all kind of best practices".
The thing is that 4 hours is not the actual time it takes for most candidates to do the coding challenge but the very optimistic very wrong time estimate from the guy who created the challenge. That guy has all the insights in mind so of course it takes even less than 4 hours for him, because programming is all about insights.
I'm glad that you can complete all those kind of challenges finger in the nose in 2 hours, but I know talented developers that would over engineer the shit out of that, going in a deep rabbit hole, and that's why I refuse to do those projects.
I think we're on the same page. We have the parameters. It's a matter of performing the calculation to say if it's worth it, not to take an unwavering stance without context or quantifiable value, even if the value is conditional.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I disagree. Coding challenges that take a few hours are a great way to showcase your skill set in a number of areas. Asking for clarification, finding inconsistencies in the prompt if any exist, and commenting code to show that you are thinking beyond "making it work" separate you from others very quickly. Ask for feedback once you complete and you have very cheaply created yet another value proposition for yourself as a candidate. That said, if it's the very first step and not the very last step in an interviewing process, then that makes little sense on both sides. All of this is contextual, of course, but if you're complaining about something that takes you 4 hours, then consider that 4 hours in light of something like a 40% chance of increasing your salary by a dollar amount, say $4000 per year. If you're staying one year, the EV of that coding challenge is $1600 and your hourly is $400. I do not understand how that is something to avoid.
It's neither right or wrong, it's an ethical question. I believe that "candidate experience" should not be just a buzzword but a reality. I believe companies should strive to not waste the time of even the candidates that end up not hiring.
Just to clarify, here I'm talking about coding challenge like "create a mobile app that will do xxx respecting all kind of best practices".
The thing is that 4 hours is not the actual time it takes for most candidates to do the coding challenge but the very optimistic very wrong time estimate from the guy who created the challenge. That guy has all the insights in mind so of course it takes even less than 4 hours for him, because programming is all about insights.
I'm glad that you can complete all those kind of challenges finger in the nose in 2 hours, but I know talented developers that would over engineer the shit out of that, going in a deep rabbit hole, and that's why I refuse to do those projects.
I think we're on the same page. We have the parameters. It's a matter of performing the calculation to say if it's worth it, not to take an unwavering stance without context or quantifiable value, even if the value is conditional.