I don’t think anyone disputes that, it’s just that nobody has come up with anything better.
Take home exercises were a potentially better option (though they definitely have other big downsides) but they aren’t a sensible choice in the age of AI.
Just taking people’s word for it is clearly worse.
Asking to see people’s open source code is unfair to people who don’t have any.
The only other option I’ve heard - which I quite like the sound of but haven’t had a chance to try - is to get candidates to do “live debugging” on a real world bug. But I expect that would draw exactly the same criticisms as live coding interviews do.
You mention lots of options. Given people are varied, and you want that in a company, how about letting the candidate decide how to prove themselves? It’s pretty established that it’s not “fair” to stick to a single style, so why hang on to that?
I don’t think anyone disputes that, it’s just that nobody has come up with anything better.
Take home exercises were a potentially better option (though they definitely have other big downsides) but they aren’t a sensible choice in the age of AI.
Just taking people’s word for it is clearly worse.
Asking to see people’s open source code is unfair to people who don’t have any.
The only other option I’ve heard - which I quite like the sound of but haven’t had a chance to try - is to get candidates to do “live debugging” on a real world bug. But I expect that would draw exactly the same criticisms as live coding interviews do.
What would you do?
You mention lots of options. Given people are varied, and you want that in a company, how about letting the candidate decide how to prove themselves? It’s pretty established that it’s not “fair” to stick to a single style, so why hang on to that?