应给候选人报名带回家的编码作业

意见 (Opinion)

Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece. I’d love to hear your counter arguments and ideas in the comments.

免责声明：这是一个观点。 我很想听听您在评论中提出的反对论点和想法。

I passed the first-round interview for a new job.

我通过了新工作的第一轮面试。

Then received the dreaded email.

然后收到了可怕的电子邮件。

“This stage of the hiring process is a take-home coding challenge. It will require 2 to 5 hours of your time.”

“招聘过程的这一阶段是实实在在的编码挑战。 这将需要2到5个小时的时间。”

There goes my Saturday…

我的星期六去了…

No one likes take-home assignments. But companies do need to evaluate candidates. These are my recommendations to improve the process, having given and received take-home challenges.

没有人喜欢带回家的作业。 但是公司确实需要评估候选人。 这些是我提出的改善流程的建议 ，既给我带来了挑战，也给我带来了挑战。

分配迫使求职者向公司投资，而公司不对求职者进行投资 (Assignments force candidates to invest in the company without the company investing in the candidate)

5 hours from an experienced candidate is worth several hundred dollars. While a company reviewing an assignment for 5 minutes costs very little.

从一个经验丰富的候选人那里得到5个小时，价值数百美元。 一家公司在5分钟内审查一项作业，花费很少。

How can we fix this?

我们该如何解决？

Not every tech company can afford to compensate all interviewees. But they can offer “something” in return.

并非每个科技公司都能负担得起所有受访者的补偿。 但是他们可以提供“某些东西”作为回报。

我建议2个选择： (I propose 2 options:)

• Quality feedback in the form of a rubric, breaking down which parts of the assignment were completed successfully or poorly. Thereby helping the candidate improve for future interviews.

  以专栏形式的质量反馈，细分了作业的哪些部分成功完成或效果不佳。 从而帮助候选人改善未来的面试。

• Minimal but thoughtful compensation, for example, a $10 gift card for Starbucks
  最低限度但周到的补偿，例如，一张价值10美元的星巴克礼品卡

The power difference between candidate and company means the company ultimately decides on the hiring process.

候选人与公司之间的权力差异意味着公司最终决定招聘流程。

That said, a small token of gratitude to un-hired candidates can go a long way to building goodwill— I’d tell my friends if a company offered me a gift card!

就是说，对未雇用的候选人表示一点谢意，可以大大建立商誉- 我会告诉我的朋友，如果一家公司为我提供了礼品卡！

作业评估了编码，但忽略了工程团队所需的其他技能 (Assignments evaluate coding but neglect other skills required in engineering teams)

Working on product with other engineers takes more than just code.

与其他工程师一起开发产品不仅仅需要代码。

Written communication, presentation skills, and business-sense are also important, but aren’t well-tested by take-home assignments.

书面交流，表达技巧和业务意识也很重要，但并没有得到带回家的作业的充分测试。

Though generally, a take-home assignment IS a good test of end-to-end engineering skills. Aka. Can the candidate work with all levels of the stack in order to solve a problem.

虽然通常来说，带回家的作业是对端到端工程技能的良好测试。 ka 候选人可以在堆栈的所有级别工作以解决问题。

In data science, this could be imagining, training and deploying a model. In software engineering, it could be designing, building and deploying an application.

在数据科学中，这可能是想象，训练和部署模型。 在软件工程中，它可能是设计，构建和部署应用程序。

This is something that verbal interviews and algorithm questions can’t evaluate. Take-home assignments give a more wholistic picture of a candidates ability. But that doesn’t mean they’re the best option.

这是口头访谈和算法问题无法评估的。 带回家的作业可以更加全面地展现候选人的能力。 但这并不意味着它们是最佳选择。

作业筛选出不感兴趣的候选人 (Assignments filter out uninterested candidates)

My gut reaction when receiving an assignment is to ignore it, and apply to other companies instead.

我收到任务时的直觉是忽略它，而是申请其他公司。

And in such cases, assignments successfully weed out candidates who haphazardly applied. Which is a good thing —companies want to hire candidates who want to work there.

在这种情况下，任务成功地淘汰了随意申请的候选人。 这是一件好事—公司希望聘请想要在那工作的候选人。

But on the flip side, candidates desperate for a job, and candidates who just enjoy coding challenges may complete it anyway.

但另一方面，求职者却急于求职，只是喜欢编码挑战的求职者仍然可以完成这项工作。

My advice is this. Never give an assignment to someone you wouldn’t consider hiring. Don’t waste people’s time.

我的建议是这个。 切勿将工作分配给您不会考虑雇用的人。 不要浪费人的时间。

公司需要一种评估技术技能的方法 (Companies need a way to evaluate technical skills)

You can’t hire someone without evaluating technical skills. Period.

您不能不评估技术技能就雇用某人。 期。

Having interviewed 100+ candidates, I can tell you that over-inflated resumes are the norm.

采访了100多位候选人之后，我可以告诉你，简历夸张是常态。

Coding skills need to be evaluated whether the candidate has a master in CS or worked at Google.

无论候选人是CS硕士还是在Google工作，都需要评估编码技巧。

And take-home assignments, despite the downsides are a great way to test this, above and beyond what algorithm questions evaluate.

尽管有缺点，但带回家作业是测试这一点的好方法，它超出了算法问题所能评估的范围。

Given the end-to-end nature of take-home assignments, they’re especially relevant to startups that need to hire generalist developers.

考虑到外派任务的端到端性质，它们与需要雇用通才开发人员的初创企业特别相关。

作业要优于白板面试(尤其是内向的人) (Assignments are superior to white boarding interviews (especially for introverts))

The only thing coders hate more than take-home assignments is white boarding.

程序员比带回家的工作更讨厌的是白板。

White boarding is an even bigger time commitment than an assignment. Given you take time off work, go to their office, and stand in-front of a white board for 3 hours. All while being watched by multiple other developers.

白板比任务要花费更多的时间。 如果您要放假，请去他们的办公室，在白板前站3个小时。 所有这些同时都受到其他多个开发人员的监视。

Aside from the time commitment, white boarding is terrible for introverts, who may be super talented engineers but can’t function while a group of people watches them.

除了时间上的投入，白板对于内向的人来说也很糟糕，他们可能是非常有才华的工程师，但是当一群人看着他们时却无法工作。

For this reason, assignments may be a fairer way to evaluate some candidates.

因此，作业可能是评估某些候选人的更公平的方法。

但是，迷你实习和自由职业者甚至更好 (But mini-internships and freelance work is even better)

Pay candidates to do real work.

付钱给候选人做真实的工作。

Assuming they’ve passed other interview stages, have them contribute to your company as an engineer or data scientist.

假设他们已通过其他面试阶段，请他们作为工程师或数据科学家为您的公司做出贡献。

Invite them to a product meeting, give them real tickets, and have them write code that needs to make it through the review process and be deployed.

邀请他们参加产品会议，给他们真实的门票，并让他们编写需要通过审核过程并进行部署的代码。

This not only tests coding specific to the company’s domain, but allows everyone in the company to evaluate them. The work can be done on-premise or remotely.

这不仅可以测试特定于公司域的编码，还可以让公司中的每个人对其进行评估。 该工作可以在本地或远程完成。

Finding such projects, and doing this at scale is difficult, but not impossible. And there’s no better way to evaluate candidates.

找到这样的项目，并大规模地做到这一点很困难，但并非不可能。 没有更好的方法来评估候选人。

结论 (Conclusion)

There are problems in the hiring process. Neither candidates or employers would disagree.

招聘过程中存在问题。 候选人或雇主都不会不同意。

A lack of experimentation, and doing what’s always been done is keeping it broken.

缺乏实验，而做所有事情都会使它崩溃。

We need a system where both candidates and employers invest in the process. This way we can create a hiring environment that’s beneficial to everyone.

我们需要一个由候选人和雇主共同投资的系统。 这样，我们可以创造一个对所有人都有利的招聘环境。

翻译自: https://towardsdatascience.com/candidates-should-be-paid-for-take-home-coding-assignments-36967b51a32c