Some great ideas in here. As someone that came up with iOS screener questions recently, it’s very difficult to determine what to ask in a short period of time to form a boolean conclusion on the candidate.
tbh, it's a huge luxury being able to help design the test - that alone will make it better than the majority of interview loops.
In many corporate environments, you don't even get to make a binary decision - you score something like 1-4 and that's collated with everyone else's ratings 🥲
Something I think we can all agree on is that coding interviews should resemble real-world conditions as much as possible. With that in mind, would you allow candidates to use AI chatbots or Copilot? How would that affect your judgment of them?
It feels like, as long as they come up with great code in a reasonable time and can demonstrate thorough understanding, then it should not matter how they get there. I would not prevent the candidate using Google or referring to documentation, or using an IDE's autocomplete, so why prevent access to another tool any productive developer ought to be using.
But I also feel like these new tools can be so good, it makes it harder for the interviewer to really get to the bottom of whether the candidate understands what they've done.
Some great ideas in here. As someone that came up with iOS screener questions recently, it’s very difficult to determine what to ask in a short period of time to form a boolean conclusion on the candidate.
Boolean conclusion! I like that
tbh, it's a huge luxury being able to help design the test - that alone will make it better than the majority of interview loops.
In many corporate environments, you don't even get to make a binary decision - you score something like 1-4 and that's collated with everyone else's ratings 🥲
Something I think we can all agree on is that coding interviews should resemble real-world conditions as much as possible. With that in mind, would you allow candidates to use AI chatbots or Copilot? How would that affect your judgment of them?
It feels like, as long as they come up with great code in a reasonable time and can demonstrate thorough understanding, then it should not matter how they get there. I would not prevent the candidate using Google or referring to documentation, or using an IDE's autocomplete, so why prevent access to another tool any productive developer ought to be using.
But I also feel like these new tools can be so good, it makes it harder for the interviewer to really get to the bottom of whether the candidate understands what they've done.