> Also, take home challenges are probably very discriminatory towards older candidates with families. So maybe just as subtle way of age discrimination?
And whiteboard interviews are discriminatory towards people with anxiety who have trouble thinking clearly when they are in the spotlight with all eyes on them, no? Where does the microaggressions game start and end?
My current company does,
-Offer choice between live coding and take home assignment. Regardless of picking the assignment, we do have multiple questions like "given this piece of code find the bug", but they won't require writing actual code.
-Home assignment for remote candidates. With a second round where we discuss and provide feedback (or the candidate explains their thought process) if needed. The candidate is also judged how feedback is received and argued about. If adequate documentation has been supplied we skip the second round too, or just do it in email back n forth.
-And if you have an impressive active blog and an active github profile you probably evade both live coding and assignment (but still get asked the usual questions about architecture, algorithm use, whether you 'll be a good personality/culture-fit etc).
Despite being "nice" our rejection ratio is quite high (at least in my team), and people who picked the assignment themselves/no-pressure applied then bitched about it on glassdoor. Even though they had the option to not have to do it at all. I don't get it.
>And whiteboard interviews are discriminatory towards people with anxiety who have trouble thinking clearly when they are in the spotlight with all eyes on them, no? Where does the microaggressions game start and end?
So Gender/Age/Disabilty discrimination are now microagrssions? It seems from your description of your hiring practice, someone has thought of the implications of take home questions given the choice between live and take home.
My point is, replacing white board questions with entirely take home questions is probably discriminatory.
Not to parse words too cutely, but, to hire someone requires discriminating amongst all of the applicants to choose the best fits. This is different from discrimination (which is “unjust”). There are certain protected classes that you are ethically not allowed to discriminate against. It is supposed to be merit based, but there is no perfect system. You would have to double blind reviewers, etc. so bias will always happen. As long as you arent doing it on purpose based on a protected class, I think whiteboard / take home are pretty tame and acceptable. Take home assignments work fine IMO. We have them and our company skews much older than SV. We have approx half or more of the company with kids and families and they have all gone through the same hiring process.
> So Gender/Age/Disabilty discrimination are now microagrssions?
Do you have any cases to cite for the proposition that take home interview assignments to be per se “Gender/Age/Disability” discrimination? From any court anywhere?
And whiteboard interviews are discriminatory towards people with anxiety who have trouble thinking clearly when they are in the spotlight with all eyes on them, no? Where does the microaggressions game start and end?
My current company does,
-Offer choice between live coding and take home assignment. Regardless of picking the assignment, we do have multiple questions like "given this piece of code find the bug", but they won't require writing actual code.
-Home assignment for remote candidates. With a second round where we discuss and provide feedback (or the candidate explains their thought process) if needed. The candidate is also judged how feedback is received and argued about. If adequate documentation has been supplied we skip the second round too, or just do it in email back n forth.
-And if you have an impressive active blog and an active github profile you probably evade both live coding and assignment (but still get asked the usual questions about architecture, algorithm use, whether you 'll be a good personality/culture-fit etc).
Despite being "nice" our rejection ratio is quite high (at least in my team), and people who picked the assignment themselves/no-pressure applied then bitched about it on glassdoor. Even though they had the option to not have to do it at all. I don't get it.