The problem is: Writing good resumes and having a lot of experience with programming is a good heuristic for "experience" and "knows how to play the game" but not meaningfully useful for "excellent at programming".
Work-sample tests measure the latter.
A worker's experience is a heuristic for programming skill, but a heuristic of a heuristic is like an average of a set of averages: Useless.
Very true! I find it disappointing that many candidates appear to put little effort in their cover letter. It's a chance to show me you can communicate well, which is maybe the single most important skill in working on a team.
I feel like cover letters are an easy way to show that you've thought about the company you're applying for, but in my experience I've never got the impression that my cover letter was actually read in the application process.
I could be plenty wrong though, and I'd love to hear from HR/recruiters about their experiences with cover letters.
I dunno. I'm sure some places don't read them at all. But I read (or at least skim) every cover letter that comes across my desk before looking at the resume.
Which makes it extra frustrating that hiring practices are the most often cargo-culted practices in this industry. I feel like the root of hiring problems is that most companies know neither what they need or how to identify those features in a candidate.
I think that's debatable. The quality of your measurement is then simply a function of how well your tests are in the first place. Do you really think giving a person FizzBuzz is any kind of accurate predictor of future success at a job?
(Switching back to my old account because rate limits.)
I wouldn't ever use something like FizzBuzz to assess a candidate. It would be more of "here's a mostly finished sample application with a corresponding SQL file, add this feature (e.g. a search bar for a blog) and fix any (intentionally introduced) security bugs you find".
They would be evaluated based on how successfully they complete the main task, and if they have an eye for finding/patching vulnerabilities, that's a bonus that can be used as a secondary selector if a lot of candidates pass. If no one does, it won't be used against them.
That's how I'd approach it, personally. Something specific to the kind of work we're doing, but abstract enough to be approachable without a lot of insider knowledge.
FizzBuzz isn't a test of whether a candidate will succeed, but of whether they will definitely fail. Someone who passes may be good or bad, but someone who can't do it is definitely not qualified.
Someone who can't do it is definitely not qualified to do fizzbuzz level programming off the cuff in a stressful interview situation.
Whether that tells you anything about their ability to do fizzbuzz level programming in a more normal work environment is an open question.
There are a few HN readers who've had experience of "choking" on fizzbuzz level programming tests during interviews - even though it's trivial there's something about the interview situation that causes some people to sometimes freeze.
What do you mean by probation periods? Something like...
"Hi, I'd like to ask you to work for a very temporary contract with us so, if it doesn't work out, you have to scramble to find more work and maybe risk homelessness."
In my experience, in the US, in the few times I've been asked to work for a 2-3 month test-drive, the proposition has been more like ...
Them: "Your skills are great, nice job on the coding project. You seem like a really good fit. We want to hire you, but we'd like you to work on a temporary contract with us at first to see how it goes for both of us."
Me: "Hmm, OK, this does seem like a very good fit and I'm cool with the test-drive. My off-site rate is $150/hr, I can have the contract on your desk in two days."
Them: "Er, wha ..., no, you see, we'll take the salary we talked about and just translate that to an hourly rate. It shouldn't be a big deal, this will only be for three months max."
Net of it: after killing it in the interview, I'm offered a short term C2C contract at drastically reduced rates, doing my usual best work, while getting no employee benefits and paying my own SE taxes, retirement contributions, and all business expenses.
I've encountered such propositions only a few times in the past 5 years, and walked each time obviously, but I still find the chutzpah of these companies astonishing.
On the other hand, maybe that was the last part of the interview? They may have wanted to see if I had any self-respect, any self-confidence, could do math, and understand basic business concepts like taxation and fully-loaded employment costs? A "no" to any of these things would have meant I'd be a more ignorant, cheaper and thus much more highly-valued employee as time went on.
In the US almost all employment is at-will - even if you've worked at a company for years. Probationary periods here typically mean that you are hired as an independent contractor without the benefits that are usually given with a full-time position such as health, dental, and retirement benefits.
Employment with [company] is "at-will." This means that you may terminate your employment at any time, with no prior notice given to [company]. It also means that the company may terminate your employment at any time, with or without notice or cause. While the company generally adheres to progressive discipline, it is not bound or obligated to do so.
As an at-will employee, you are not guaranteed, in any manner, that you will be employed for any set period of time. No one in the company, except the President, in a written, signed contract, may make any representation or promise to you that you are other than an at-will employee. Any employee, manager or supervisor who makes such a representation or promise to you is not authorized to do so.
I've no idea why this has been downvoted as it's correct.
For the last few years this has been written into law and employees don't get their full employment rights (such as the right to contest an unfair dismissal) until you've been employed for 12 months. (A de-facto one year probation period.)
I should note that employee rights during this probation period are probably stronger than in many US states.
You don't want to hire people who are incapable of functioning in a professional setting or interacting with coworkers, so I'm not sure expecting experience and a well-crafted resume (regardless of the content) is a problem.
Just as grep and cat solve different problems, work-sample tests and traditional resume-based hiring practices select for different candidates.
I wasn't arguing in favor of work-sample tests for every company and every candidate, just saying their scope is different (although work-sample tests are more likely to find the untapped potential in the marketplace).
Work-sample tests measure the latter.
A worker's experience is a heuristic for programming skill, but a heuristic of a heuristic is like an average of a set of averages: Useless.