"The huge backlog of code you are referring to is probably owned by other companies..." which is a fair statement. However, the word "probably" and the words "is always" are not the same thing. Just because something might be owned by another company doesn't mean it always is in every case under every circumstance. Therefore, blanketing the entirety of cases as always illegal eliminates the possibility of cases where it is not illegal and would save an honest and hard working developer a lot of time and trouble if someone would care to look at his past work.
"Open source projects might be useful and they might not be". Absolutely true. You say usually it isn't. Fair enough. Under what circumstances are they not useful, then? Perhaps a better question, under what circumstances ARE they useful? Do we have any data representing the number of people who have open source projects or contributions to such and how often those materials are viewed and disregarded for a job?
"The experience you have with other companies is not visible to others." Again a fair point. My knowledge in the law is limited to my own country (and even then I am no lawyer) so I can understand legal limitations. Does this apply to colleagues? Does this apply to 100% of the cases you encounter? Again, is there a blanket course of action here along the lines of "Well, in 90% of cases, I can't even ask a previous employer for a reference, so I may as well just not try"?
Regarding the time consuming task of reviewing a problem you're not familiar with: It feels like you're passing the hot potato over. Anything you're not familiar with is difficult and time consuming. Anything worth doing is also often the same. Where do we cross the line of "It's too difficult for me so, here, let me make your life a bit more difficult instead of making my life a lot more difficult"? Not that it's the wrong thing to do, per say, but let's at least articulate that. Furthermore, what is to prevent employers from creating arbitrary tests that end up having no relation to the finality of the job? I can count a great deal of times I've participated in and heard of tests being taken where the test ended up having nothing to do with the job. The employer could not formulate a proper test, as much as the employer was convinced they had, and the developer wasted time on a test that did not directly match their skills to the job they actually did. How do we navigate that?
Your statement regard a non-coincidental relation to high quality co-workers and programming exercises: Do you have any data to support that statement outside of personal experience? Do we have some form of industry data that proves this to be true? Because, personal experience to personal experience, I can argue against that.
"Companies that require programming challenges want to see if you really want the job" and, here, I think we've crossed a line. Indicators of wanting the job are not solely willingness to do extra work, put in extra hours or do other types of "grunt" work, especially without pay. Asking someone to go the extra mile with no guarantee of a job at the end and no compensation is, in my personal opinion, disrespectful and an indicator of what I will be asked to do in this company were I hired. Just as a company wants to avoid wasting their time, so too do developers. I literally do not have enough time in the day to accommodate all the dog and pony jumps I have to do in order to prove to anybody that I want a job. That has nothing to do with my desire for that job. Furthermore, for developers who have spent years, perhaps decades, going the extra mile, it gets tiresome to have all your past work thrown away before entering the gates and asked to start from scratch. Imagine waking up every day and having to take your drivers test all over again before you can drive to the mall to get your groceries. That's what it feels like.
If the company has no use for whatever programming challenge I do then I should not be asked to do it. Perhaps you meant there is usually no technical implementation that provides any business value to that company if implemented. It's an exercise in demonstration of desire and skill but that's it and why should the company pay you for that. That seems more clear to me.
I can understand that point of view. Why pay for something you're not going to use? I think my previous statements generally touch on this.
I think the statement "If you're not willing to do my test then you don't care" is unfair. I care. I care a great deal. Anybody who has a family to feed and needs work cares. Limitations in ones life and ability to maintain a full time job, family responsibilities and the grueling process of interviewing cannot always meet your demands but it is not a directly a cause of a lack of care.
Edit: Spelling and grammar
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.
Thanks for the insight!
"The huge backlog of code you are referring to is probably owned by other companies..." which is a fair statement. However, the word "probably" and the words "is always" are not the same thing. Just because something might be owned by another company doesn't mean it always is in every case under every circumstance. Therefore, blanketing the entirety of cases as always illegal eliminates the possibility of cases where it is not illegal and would save an honest and hard working developer a lot of time and trouble if someone would care to look at his past work.
"Open source projects might be useful and they might not be". Absolutely true. You say usually it isn't. Fair enough. Under what circumstances are they not useful, then? Perhaps a better question, under what circumstances ARE they useful? Do we have any data representing the number of people who have open source projects or contributions to such and how often those materials are viewed and disregarded for a job?
"The experience you have with other companies is not visible to others." Again a fair point. My knowledge in the law is limited to my own country (and even then I am no lawyer) so I can understand legal limitations. Does this apply to colleagues? Does this apply to 100% of the cases you encounter? Again, is there a blanket course of action here along the lines of "Well, in 90% of cases, I can't even ask a previous employer for a reference, so I may as well just not try"?
Regarding the time consuming task of reviewing a problem you're not familiar with: It feels like you're passing the hot potato over. Anything you're not familiar with is difficult and time consuming. Anything worth doing is also often the same. Where do we cross the line of "It's too difficult for me so, here, let me make your life a bit more difficult instead of making my life a lot more difficult"? Not that it's the wrong thing to do, per say, but let's at least articulate that. Furthermore, what is to prevent employers from creating arbitrary tests that end up having no relation to the finality of the job? I can count a great deal of times I've participated in and heard of tests being taken where the test ended up having nothing to do with the job. The employer could not formulate a proper test, as much as the employer was convinced they had, and the developer wasted time on a test that did not directly match their skills to the job they actually did. How do we navigate that?
Your statement regard a non-coincidental relation to high quality co-workers and programming exercises: Do you have any data to support that statement outside of personal experience? Do we have some form of industry data that proves this to be true? Because, personal experience to personal experience, I can argue against that.
"Companies that require programming challenges want to see if you really want the job" and, here, I think we've crossed a line. Indicators of wanting the job are not solely willingness to do extra work, put in extra hours or do other types of "grunt" work, especially without pay. Asking someone to go the extra mile with no guarantee of a job at the end and no compensation is, in my personal opinion, disrespectful and an indicator of what I will be asked to do in this company were I hired. Just as a company wants to avoid wasting their time, so too do developers. I literally do not have enough time in the day to accommodate all the dog and pony jumps I have to do in order to prove to anybody that I want a job. That has nothing to do with my desire for that job. Furthermore, for developers who have spent years, perhaps decades, going the extra mile, it gets tiresome to have all your past work thrown away before entering the gates and asked to start from scratch. Imagine waking up every day and having to take your drivers test all over again before you can drive to the mall to get your groceries. That's what it feels like.
If the company has no use for whatever programming challenge I do then I should not be asked to do it. Perhaps you meant there is usually no technical implementation that provides any business value to that company if implemented. It's an exercise in demonstration of desire and skill but that's it and why should the company pay you for that. That seems more clear to me.
I can understand that point of view. Why pay for something you're not going to use? I think my previous statements generally touch on this.
I think the statement "If you're not willing to do my test then you don't care" is unfair. I care. I care a great deal. Anybody who has a family to feed and needs work cares. Limitations in ones life and ability to maintain a full time job, family responsibilities and the grueling process of interviewing cannot always meet your demands but it is not a directly a cause of a lack of care.
Edit: Spelling and grammar