> One candidate even thought they should be able to bill us for their time spent applying (We passed)
Ironically, you passed on the smartest applicant of the bunch.
> offered candidates the choice
> reframed
Aren't meaningless shenanigans generally associated with meaningless things?
Do you have any evidence that either strategy really matters? Does it boil down to, "We choose an interviewing strategy that selects for people who look like programmers."
So instead of doing a 4-hour on-site interview, you make a hiring decision based on a 4-hour take-home problem?
Seems you think that 4h test was all, wondering how you got that idea
So candidates actively chose to add a 4h project on top of a 4h in-person interview?
There's probably a one or two hours soft skills interview and more that they didn't mention.
How do you stop people from "getting help" on the take home problems.
Why would you penalize an employee for getting help on a problem? Stack overflow away. Troubleshooting is an essential skill.
I think s/he meant letting a friend do the whole assignment
Precisely and I've heard of people landing gigs at some well known companies who did just that. Without any followup questions.
> One candidate even thought they should be able to bill us for their time spent applying ...
Are you meaning they wanted your company to pay for the time used to solve the take-home problem?
If so, isn't it normally done that way in order to prevent companies potentially exploiting free labour?
> an on-site whiteboard style interview where they solved a subset of the problem in pair-programming fashion with us
Do you offer candidates a remote pair-programming interview?
E.g. screen-sharing session over Skype/Zoom?
Eventually I changed the strategy and offered candidates the choice of the take-home problem or an on-site whiteboard style interview where they solved a subset of the problem in pair-programming fashion with us. Zero people chose the on-site interview. Everyone chose the take-home problem.
No one complained any more after we reframed the take-home problem as the candidate's choice rather than the company's.