Software Development - too much focus on prior skills?

[Ancalagon]

Fair enough, that sucks. Must be a massive company - or dont you even know, haha?

My agent is awesome, so I know who they are and approximately how big they are. For a consulting company, they are huge. I think 300 to 400.

 

[James]

I dont mind technical tests at all. I do well at them usually.

But I do mind them if I havent even met the guys or gone for an interview yet. That pisses me off. If you take my CV seriously, then have the decency to introduce yourselves.

We have a technical test for our company and it serves 2 points (it is not done at the office, you can do it at home if you want) the first point is you can immediately see their coding standards, styles and patterns and secondly when you get to interview time it is a great talking point. You queation their approach and get a great understanding of how their mind works. We ask the candidates not to spend more than 1 hour on coding (it is a short script to parse an XML file and do minor manipulations and localisations).

 

[Ancalagon]

We have a technical test for our company and it serves 2 points (it is not done at the office, you can do it at home if you want) the first point is you can immediately see their coding standards, styles and patterns and secondly when you get to interview time it is a great talking point. You queation their approach and get a great understanding of how their mind works. We ask the candidates not to spend more than 1 hour on coding (it is a short script to parse an XML file and do minor manipulations and localisations).

If its not more than an hour, and you can do it on your own time, then I dont mind. I do mind if its 3 hours and can only be done during work hours.

I generally prefer it if the technical test is done on the premises. Like, short introductory interview, technical test 1 hour, concluding interview. Then you can still examine the guy's coding standards, and talk about his approach.

In fact, to get the job I have now required me to do a test that took most of the day. The point was to develop my own little website, using technologies and techniques that I had never used before. I didnt mind that, because I had had a first interview with them already, and decided I liked them, and I happened to not be working at the time (having just returned from the UK). I'll spend as long as is necessary on a technical test, but only if I think the company is worth it.

 

[hof]

Why do you feel you are entitled to an interview first? Anyone can write a good CV (and talk a big game), but it says nothing of the way you solve problems or write code. I've recently been on both sides of the table; interviewing for a replacement, and being interviewed for a new position. Considering that we received over 30 CV's that we were interested in, should we allocate 30 hours (maybe more) of our CTO and a senior developer's time to interviewing? Absolutely not. Of the 30, only 6 candidates could code to the standard that we required.

It sounds like you're going about this process all wrong. You're a senior Java developer right? That does not mean you're qualified to work as a senior .Net developer. Granted, you might pick up C# quickly but the environment, frameworks and VM's all differ; sometimes dramatically, sometimes subtly. In either case, if you're hiring someone with 5 years of experience you want someone has knowledge of both the better-known and the subtler details - something that only occurs when you've sacrificed 5 years of life on it.

If you're a Java dev, look for a Java position, there are so many out there. If you really want to switch to .Net, look for a bridging position - perhaps an intermediate .Net developer, or work for a firm that uses both technologies. And if you're interviewing, you need to be able to take time off work. Start earlier and work later, fake a dentist appointment, a death, be creative. 3 hours isn't unheard of, I recently had an interview that lasted 3.5 hours.

 

[ufis]

Why do you feel you are entitled to an interview first? Anyone can write a good CV (and talk a big game), but it says nothing of the way you solve problems or write code. I've recently been on both sides of the table; interviewing for a replacement, and being interviewed for a new position. Considering that we received over 30 CV's that we were interested in, should we allocate 30 hours (maybe more) of our CTO and a senior developer's time to interviewing? Absolutely not. Of the 30, only 6 candidates could code to the standard that we required.

The interview process should be a 2 way interview process. Not only are you interviewing me to see if you want to give me a job, but I am also interviewing you to see if I want to work for you.

You get 30 cv's and figure that would be 30 hours of interviews.

I submit to 10 positions and each want me to do a 3 hour test before hand. Each at a different location. Is my time less valuable than the CTO and a senior dev?
Why 10 positions? Because just like anyone can write a good CV, anyone can write a good job description. I have to find the one that suits me best.

There are 2 sides to this. There is not only the employer.

 

[Ancalagon]

Why do you feel you are entitled to an interview first? Anyone can write a good CV (and talk a big game), but it says nothing of the way you solve problems or write code. I've recently been on both sides of the table; interviewing for a replacement, and being interviewed for a new position. Considering that we received over 30 CV's that we were interested in, should we allocate 30 hours (maybe more) of our CTO and a senior developer's time to interviewing? Absolutely not. Of the 30, only 6 candidates could code to the standard that we required.

I understand the problem, but its not my problem. First of all, its the companies risk. I take a risk everytime I go for an interview - the company could be terrible. You take the same risk.

Secondly, a 1 hour technical test which you can do on your own time is fine. A 3 hour test that can only be during certain hours is too much.

Thirdly, whatever the real world risk for the company is, you need to understand that to developers such as myself, it leaves a bad impression. And other developers too, judging by the other posts. If you are okay with knowing that, then go for it.

It sounds like you're going about this process all wrong. You're a senior Java developer right? That does not mean you're qualified to work as a senior .Net developer. Granted, you might pick up C# quickly but the environment, frameworks and VM's all differ; sometimes dramatically, sometimes subtly. In either case, if you're hiring someone with 5 years of experience you want someone has knowledge of both the better-known and the subtler details - something that only occurs when you've sacrificed 5 years of life on it.

If you're a Java dev, look for a Java position, there are so many out there. If you really want to switch to .Net, look for a bridging position - perhaps an intermediate .Net developer, or work for a firm that uses both technologies. And if you're interviewing, you need to be able to take time off work. Start earlier and work later, fake a dentist appointment, a death, be creative. 3 hours isn't unheard of, I recently had an interview that lasted 3.5 hours.

I'm not a Java dev, I'm a .Net dev. And I'm not particularly looking to change. My point is, companies put too much emphasis on technologies and not enough on actual development skills. Just because you have 5 years with Java does not make you a good developer, or even knowledgeable about Java. It actually doesnt guarantee anything. In fact, 5 years of .Net development is still too general a requirement, if its skill with a particular technology that matters. They should rather say they want 5 years experience in GlassFish, or RhinoMocks, or GenPro. Anyone can learn C# itself in a matter of days or weeks at most.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I've been a .Net developer for years, but nothing stopped me from starting a game development project in Java with libraries I had never used, and in a short time I learned them very well. I could also put the design work that I learned to good use in the Java project, patterns etc. Thats independent of a language.

 

[hof]

Secondly, a 1 hour technical test which you can do on your own time is fine. A 3 hour test that can only be during certain hours is too much.

I'm not disagreeing that it seems excessive, but I don't think it's unfair. A 3 hour test may be necessary to test your knowledge and problem solving ability on a more complex problem. Doing it during your own time doesn't show how you deal with pressure. Furthermore, you can ascertain quite a lot about what what you will be doing at the company from the test. If you're not interested, walk.

My point is, companies put too much emphasis on technologies and not enough on actual development skills. Just because you have 5 years with Java does not make you a good developer, or even knowledgeable about Java.

Probably why they want you to write a 3 hour test under pressure.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm not disagreeing that it seems excessive, but I don't think it's unfair. A 3 hour test may be necessary to test your knowledge and problem solving ability on a more complex problem. Doing it during your own time doesn't show how you deal with pressure. Furthermore, you can ascertain quite a lot about what what you will be doing at the company from the test. If you're not interested, walk.



Probably why they want you to write a 3 hour test under pressure.

The only way to do that is to have me do the test at the premises, else I dont feel pressure.

It also gives no indication of what they do - every test I've ever done, and I've done a lot, shows nothing about the company. Nothing at all.