I have empathy for the false negatives. I have been them, or maybe at times I'm simply a false positive, the problem is those people are likely to freeze no matter the interview.
Further still, I get push back with folks citing self-prescribed medical conditions, but the same people generally display the same behaviours during the working day.
So other than contract to hire, which typically limits you to people with a job, I don't personally have a better way.
> I have empathy for the false negatives. I have been them, or maybe at times I'm simply a false positive, the problem is those people are likely to freeze no matter the interview.
I can't speak to the statistical claim that "those people are more likely to freeze no matter the interview."
But just my personal anecdote: I do fine on take-home coding tests, but I freeze up on live-coding tests.
This is one reason I'm vexed by the allegedly common cheating in take-home coding tests. It makes employers suspicious of the testing style that I'm best at.
I've actually had people cheat on live coding sessions.
For north of $2m over your career, cheating probably is the smart thing to do, especially for a borderline candidate, as there's a fair amount of evidence that the prestige on your CV will make things easier going forward.
However, my problem with take homes was never that the candidate would cheat, but rather they'll probably spend way more time than the 2 hours allocated.
I'm actually less worried about the candidate doing that, than I'm worried that the interviewer bakes in a bunch of assumptions like having a machine setup to do the task, having the specific domain knowledge and experience, and then accidentally trolls the candidate with little to no avenue for feedback.
Further still, I get push back with folks citing self-prescribed medical conditions, but the same people generally display the same behaviours during the working day.
So other than contract to hire, which typically limits you to people with a job, I don't personally have a better way.