My team is looking to expand and we are ready to hire two junior developers to become permanent members of our group.

We won't mind a graduate just off college with a basic understanding of databases, HTTP and basic web programming as in the end we're looking for fast learners and commitment rather than experience.

My dilemma is: should I request a candidate to do a technical challenge such as a programming exercise? I don't mean whiteboard coding, but rather some homework to show how they would approach a problem without the stress of people looking over your shoulder.

However, I think such an exercise is useful mostly to assess experience rather than ability to learn. Furthermore, I suspect many junior developers would be terrified at the mere idea of doing a programming exercise for an interview (ever heard of impostor syndrome?), and I'm afraid we'll miss some talent. At the same time we obviously can't afford to hire someone with no experience as a programmer whatsoever, and I'd rather not do whiteboard coding.

At the moment I'm considering a mixed solution, i.e. to either require contribution to open source projects, or a GitHub repository, or a Stack Overflow profile; or do a technical challenge.

Should I use a technical challenge when hiring for a junior position?

  • @JoeStrazzere, I think a technical challenge is an excellent tool when you have confidence in the language i.e. if you are a senior. Imagine you were given a technical challenge in a programming language you have little experience with; you'll probably spend most of your time trying to get the tool "out of your way" rather than solving the problem. Hence my doubt about using this instrument
    – lorenzog
    Apr 18, 2015 at 12:33
  • I think the 'homework' exercise is a great idea! Takes the pressure of an interview where you feel like an idiot if you don't immediately recall xyz; allows you to check a reference document as you actually would if you had the job! The scope for potential cheating could be limited by having it occur before an interview, during which the candidate explained the design, and answers your questions about it, or changes to it (to avoid rehearsal).
    – OJFord
    Apr 18, 2015 at 19:54
  • @JoeStrazzere yes, seniors are sent a technical challenge after a phone screen. Following that there is an on-site interview with whiteboard and a chat with the managing director.
    – lorenzog
    Apr 18, 2015 at 20:33
  • @OllieFord yes, that is exactly my point. Most of the answers below, however, seem to frown upon the idea which is making me consider alternatives or wonder if there is a better approach.
    – lorenzog
    Apr 18, 2015 at 20:34
  • @JoeStrazzere it is a possibility but I wonder if there are other ideas where a junior would spend their time working on the problem rather than fighting with the tool. For example the (accepted) answer of pair programming offers a good approach.
    – lorenzog
    Apr 19, 2015 at 7:41

11 Answers 11


If you want to have coding demonstration, without a homework exercise or whiteboard, do a paired programming exercise.

This can be a couple different ways.

  1. Debug/troubleshoot examples containing obvious, non-syntax bugs. Write up a somewhat small example (something someone can look at and work through in a manner of minutes, not hours), with very deliberate bugs/mistakes of varying difficulties. Have the candidate talk through the code, explaining what issues they find and how they'd fix them. Keep these conceptual, not syntax (not "missed a semicolon here!" but more "loop incorrectly setup" or "not cleaning up memory" or "not threadsafe" issues). These issues should be core programming issues of varying difficulty to identify.
  2. Write a basic application. Have the candidate write a basic application to do something. You can make it relevant to your business, or not.

Make sure to tell the applicants this is going to happen. This is going to very much fluster/intimidate introverts and throwing it at them without advance notice is not a good idea. You might even tell them the rough concept of the examples.

During this, make sure you:

  • Ask questions to guide and determine the skill level of the applicant. Don't let them go for an hour with no feedback.
  • Recognize people will be nervous. You might even acknowledge that. "Hey, this might be uncomfortable, so let me know if there are things I can do to make you feel more at ease."
  • Give at least an hour of time.
  • Have a good setup (dual, mirrored, monitors)
  • Ensure tools don't get in the way. Don't drop applicants in a really complicated IDE setup
  • If the candidate is stuck, give feedback/help and don't let them sit there spinning their wheels. This wastes everyone's time.
  • 2
    +1: For a junior position, a quick pair programming exercise should be sufficient. For more senior positions I like to combine a "homework assignment" with a pair programming exercise on that assignment. It can really tell you what they wrote, what they found, and brings up a lot of great questions about why they chose to do things in one way or another. Apr 17, 2015 at 16:03
  • 5
    @IanHolstead everything can be implemented poorly. That doesn't mean we should do nothing..
    – enderland
    Apr 17, 2015 at 17:22
  • 2
    @enderland troubleshoot broken examples sounds like a setup for the situation I mentioned. Why not get the candidate to read working code and explain what it does? Or code that compiles but still could be improved? I spent much more of my time reading working code than broken code. Apr 17, 2015 at 17:28
  • 1
    @IanHolstead I clarified... not sytax issues, but conceptual issues.
    – enderland
    Apr 17, 2015 at 19:04
  • 1
    Relevant reading by one of stack exchange's co-founders: joelonsoftware.com/articles/GuerrillaInterviewing3.html Apr 17, 2015 at 22:53

I'm a junior engineer who has been working full-time for a year, and I've gone through two interviews (and got both jobs). I will share what the first company did that I thought was good and got us our good hires.

Firstly, in my opinion, don't give "homework". You are only going to get the people who are desperate for jobs to complete them and turn them in. Anytime a recruiter calls me now and gives me homework before I am even given a phone interview, they don't hear back from me. I'm not in school anymore, sorry.

Anyway, they brought me in and gave me a multi-page quiz on various technical topics related to Unix, Java, and object-oriented programming. There were also some very simple physics and math problems on there. After that, there was a simple whiteboard coding exercise (and I mean very simple, no classes or OOP or anything, just something with strings).

In my opinion, it was a great way to interview and the company had all very smart people working there. You would be surprised how many people who have college degrees in programming can't even write a simple for loop or understand strings. I think being able to think on your feet is a great ability for an engineer, and shows whether you crack under pressure or rise above. More importantly, it shows that you prepared for the interview. If the candidate prepared they should be slightly nervous but not enough that they forget how to program. The only caveat to this is it requires you to remember perfect syntax, which is kind of useless in today's world of IDEs. Use your own discretion for that.

If you're curious, the company I work for now had a much easier technical interview. They basically asked how I would go about designing a piece of software for a specific function, as well as simple questions on multithreading. The people are just as smart here if not smarter, and I enjoy the work way more. It seems like it's mostly a crapshoot in this industry.

  • 11
    +1 for no homework - it gives people with more free time an unfair advantage over people with less. It also gives people with friend, family or supportive colleagues with related skills an unfair advantage over people without since they can contribute or critique. Apr 17, 2015 at 17:09
  • 6
    I got my current job by doing coding "homework" before the interview, and I love it here. Certainly it's a valid choice if you want to decline interviews that require this, but it's hardly an across the board rule. A lot of people are thrilled to be able to demonstrate actual ability, rather than just ability to interview/test well. Apr 17, 2015 at 21:12
  • 6
    You may not be in school anymore, but you probably do want to hold down a decent job for more than 6 months. Eventually that's going to require overtime or work similar to what you'd call "homework." It sounds like their requirement to show competence, determination, etc did exactly what they were hoping for. Apr 17, 2015 at 21:28
  • 1
    @FreeAsInBeer I agree, and I am actually involved in something at work that is not programming and is very boring, and have had to work overtime to do it. The difference is, I am being paid to do this work. Working for a company where I am not employed, and may not even like the company itself, is just not productive for me. Apr 18, 2015 at 14:58
  • 4
    I see your point, but my situation is slightly different and I think the difference here is what matters. I'm not a recruiter - I'm sending a technical exercise (to call them homework makes you upset, apparently) after a phone screen. If the candidate shows commitment that is a good sign. On the other hand if their reply is "sorry, I don't do homework" it shows that (a) they don't want the job, and (b) that rather than gettings thing done they'd rather argue with their possible future senior. Thanks, but no thanks.
    – lorenzog
    Apr 18, 2015 at 20:50

should I request a candidate to do a technical challenge such as a programming exercise?


Think about it this way: you are there to evaluate someone's ability to do the job. Their job is to write code. It's not to answer trivia. It's not to be a good cultural fit. It's not to go around telling people how they did stuff in a previous job. So why wouldn't you have them actually write code? Are you sure you can evaluate how well people can write code without it?

I suspect many junior developers would be terrified at the mere idea of doing a programming exercise for an interview

In my experience with senior level CS students and interviewing programmers for 10 years, this is very often because these junior developers are incompetent. They're scared to death of writing code because they know they'll be found out to be the skill-less code monkeys (or outright cheaters) they are. And that's good! As an interviewer, that is what you are supposed to be doing.

Sure, you'll get the occasional case of impostor syndrome, but that's something you the interviewer can help expose. And you should certainly try to reduce the stress of the interview process - including any coding problems. That does nobody any good.

In my experience, the best approach is to sit the candidate in a cube/at a desk with a laptop for a timeboxed on-site coding problem. Something like an hour to solve a few role-appropriate problems.

Why? This lets you give them requirements, and allows them to ask questions. They'll have to do that in the job, so make sure they can do it. It lets them see what your working environment is like. It helps prevent cheating (since you know they wrote the code and you can look at browser history to see what they needed to look for, and if they copy/pasted code). And we've found that having candidates code for an hour before interviews helps calm them down and get them in the right frame of mind for questions (often about the coding problems) later.

Oh, and by having a handful of consistent programming problems, you can more easily compare and contrast your candidates, apples to apples.

  • 3
    +1: I like the vast majority of this answer, but I don't agree regarding the cultural fit. It's certainly not as important as the ability to hammer out code, but it is "part of the job". There are not a lot of jobs where a local misanthrope is going to be beneficial to a team. Apr 17, 2015 at 15:57
  • @JoelEtherton - there's a difference between "must be cultural fit" and "don't be an asshole".
    – Telastyn
    Apr 17, 2015 at 15:58
  • 2
    agreed, and there are many shades in between. I'm indicating that I just feel that line doesn't really belong with the tenor of what you're saying as it reads like you're saying it has no place in the process. I doubt that's what you're saying, but that's how it reads (to me). Apr 17, 2015 at 16:01
  • 1
    Yes, give them some sort of level-appropriate task. We do this for all developer applicants, including interns, and we haven't had anybody flee in terror yet. (We give them less-than-wonderful working code and ask them to improve it in various ways; they aren't starting with an empty buffer. Your exercise may vary, but have one.) Apr 17, 2015 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Telastyn Maybe specifically the term "cultural fit" is a bit loaded. I think what people mean when they want to see if someone is "a good fit" is if they can integrate well into the team and the way the organization works. How well someone can do this can have to do with a lot of factors like personality, etc. as well as "culture" (whatever that actually means). It's also possible some companies conceivably have had super coders in the past but that they didn't work well specifically because they didn't "fit" well. Do you want a super coder who doesn't fit well, or a mediocre one that does?
    – Brandin
    Apr 17, 2015 at 18:56

Yes you should test them, but on premise. Homework is useless. It shows that they have talented friends/family or were lucky and found code or whatever. It in no way shows their skill.

I have given similar entry level database tests. They are more word problems and relationship models then they are creating tables and doing some form of sql.

For instance I would say we have trainers that teach classes, some of these classes are in person, some of these are via web, some classes only some groups of students can be in, some classes anyone can be in, some trainers teach everything, while some trainers teach only some...

Please draw out all of the database tables with as many fields as you can include to get all of the information about trainers, students, and classes. Then please draw out how you would input these things into the front end.

There isn't a right answer because there isn't ALL the information. It is a very open question and you will see how far candidates take it. It is very easy to teach entry level people the syntax needed for your web pages, how to create tables, and add fields. Some people though have a hard time grasping data normalization, efficiency, relationships, and inclusiveness.

  • 3
    I don't think homework is useless. In fact, quite the opposite - when coupled with an in-person review, it shows (a) honesty (if someone else did them, the candidate would not be able to discuss it) and (b) how they work without additional stress e.g. in their own home. Those are not items that are easy to discern in an on-site interview.
    – lorenzog
    Apr 18, 2015 at 12:38
  • @lorenzog If you are looking for programmers just putting their head down and writing code that is fine. I hardly ever hire this type and we have more of free range developers. For these they could still get a great amount of help/explanation from a peer in 1-2 days. Again not looking for how smart their friends are.
    – blankip
    Apr 18, 2015 at 17:04
  • You forgot to add "... or they found out how to get their homework solved on StackOverflow" :)
    – user13655
    Apr 18, 2015 at 21:48
  • @DVK - I doubt that. Their friends helping them go to SO.
    – blankip
    Apr 19, 2015 at 4:04
  • 1
    @toogley if a candidate learns something completely new from a friend and is able to discuss it during an interview and prove me they understood I most definitely would want this person in my team. Fast learning is definitely a skill.
    – lorenzog
    Mar 12, 2017 at 14:27

Make it Relevant to the job!

It does make sense to give a bit of a programming test, but do make it something that is relevant to the task at hand. I once did an interview where I was asked to implement Conway's Game of Life. It was pointless! Yes, I was able to do it, but I almost walked out, as it had nothing to do with the real job (this was interviewing at Williams-Sonoma).

Asking someone to do something relevant to the organization can open up all sorts of domain-specific insight they may have. I think that would help pinpoint the best candidates. They may also have some approach that you have not considered towards solving a long-existing problem.

  • Very true instead of beating around the bush why not give a ALMOST real scenario so that they get a feel of the real job will be Apr 18, 2015 at 4:33

I've seen this several times. When I was more junior, one company asked me to troubleshoot a page (in production, which seemed odd but I was naive) and offer suggestions I would implement if I were hired.

You guessed it - they turned me down, fixed the page based on my feedback, and implemented some of my suggestions. What I thought was an interview turned into free labor. This was several hours of my time, for which I wasn't compensated. Please keep this in mind before you assign "homework" to a candidate.

You may have better luck with some kind of online quiz. I know there are a bunch of these (I don't know if BrainBench is around anymore, but when I drop that name most people know what I'm talking about)

From the interviewee end, I'd say i possible send the quiz FIRST, and based on their scores bring in the people you want to talk to (if the quiz is important).

I'm a senior level developer now, and I'm still asked to take these after an interview (even when the interview is fairly technical and seems to go well). I always thought it'd make more sense for a phone screen, if that goes well send the quiz, and if the score was in line with what you need, bring in the candidate.

  • Sorry but I find your implication a little hard to swallow. So this company who was having trouble with their web application needed someone to look it over and point them in the right direction. The task needed about one hour to solve (you said several hours, but let's say part of that was for the actual interview). So instead of asking an expert to allocate one hour to the problem, they call several job applicants in, interview them, state the problem they're having as a "test" until they just happen to get the right guy (you) who was able to solve it for them? What a waste of resources.
    – Brandin
    Apr 17, 2015 at 19:05
  • 1
    I was asked to do additional work as part of what I thought was an interview. It seemed to go well, and being young and naive I did it. (At the end I got what I thought was an offer) I spent several hours - if I remember correctly, three, three and a half hours going page by page through the site (it was 1999). In the end they didn't hire me. Lesson learned: give them ONE small tip, and if they want more, they have to pay for it.
    – Tim
    Apr 17, 2015 at 19:23
  • This is interesting - the "homework" we are using would be exactly their first assignment except in a simpler version to avoid the "free labour" problem which I think is shameful. However the issue you describe is not related to my initial question, but instead shows a culture problem in the hiring company.
    – lorenzog
    Apr 18, 2015 at 12:41

Be very careful about the type of "homework" you assign to a prospective employee - despite the fact that they've all been through college to get a degree in the same field, their backgrounds are going to be very divergent and different. A test for one skill will test for that specific skill and that skill only - and only for a specific case.

It is good that you're looking at an prospective employer's ability to study and seek out a solution on their own - since that is what most developers will do on the job anyway - but no matter what test you design, there will be bias, depending on how the test is written. Some people are terrible at the classic whiteboard challenge, while others would beg to have it back instead of what you're proposing. This is a risk you will run with any 'test of skill' you give to your employee.

The important thing, therefore, is to make sure that the skill you are testing for is a necessity for the job - if you want to test someone's SQL-querying, make it an SQL Querying test (note - this IS different than SQL manipulation), if you want to test their error handling, test their ability to interpret errors.

Just remember that the ability to pass one type of test over another does not determine the employee's general programming ability, or their willingness to learn. For that, you will still need to rely on the interview.


My answer will consist of two approaches. First two bullets, I will discuss how to improve the testing process to alleviate the downsides that you or others brought up. Then, I will devote a bullets to things you can do to improve your technical challenge efficacy.

  1. It seems that you like the idea of an on-site technical challenge except for one caveat:

    Furthermore, I suspect many junior developers would be terrified at the mere idea of doing a programming exercise for an interview (ever heard of impostor syndrome?), and I'm afraid we'll miss some talent.

    This caveat is extremely easy to dispose of, however:

    Simply tell them honestly and upfront that what you're evaluating for - that is, you want to see how they think during coding process and what their style and approach is. That is, there's no pass/fail in the test in the sense of you have to produce a program with a given "correct" result.

    This will (from personal experience) calm down the

  1. Some other answers mentioned a possible downside to a off-site "homework" technical challenge, which is that there is a risk of a candidate getting help that shows their work as better than their real capability.

    There are 2 easy ways to easily detect that in the in-person interview post-homework:

    • First, during the interview, ask them to slightly expand on their homework solution, by extending requirements. Someone who sweated their answers themselves would be immeasurably better at this than someone who were given the answer.

    • Supplement that with a smaller onsite coding test (whiteboard or better yet, pair programming in front of your IDE of choice).

  2. A very good approach to a technical challenge is not to make them write code, but to review code. Give code some sample code that has inefficiencies and bugs of varying obviousness, and have them go over the code with you.


Several questions rolled into one:

Yes you should set a coding challenge, but no, do not set it as homework, for many reasons, some of which are to prevent cheating, copying, plagiarism, getting help, impersonation. But also because it robs you of two valuable parts: you get to see how their thought process works when under stress, and also (it's a two-way street) they get to see how you approach code development. For example, do you set a slightly ambiguous problem statement and expect them to make simplifying assumptions, or to down tools until you supply a definitive clarification? (the "right" approach depends entirely on your domain e.g. programming life-support systems is different to web code).

I think such an exercise is useful mostly to assess experience rather than ability to learn.

Even more fundamentally, it's to assess the thought process behind the code. Be clear whether you're assessing (algorithmic) knowledge or coding proficiency - those are two distinct things. Tell them you're not waiting to pounce on mistakes, just to see how they approach things.

Do keep it relevant to the job function, but don't ask for free consulting (as @Tim said - this does happen, with sleazy employers). Try to avoid toy problems like FizzBuzz, Towers of Hanoi, Conway's Game of Life. Pick something with more than one algorithmic component to make it immune to simple copy-and-paste.

However, Furthermore, I suspect many junior developers would be terrified at the mere idea of doing a programming exercise for an interview (ever heard of impostor syndrome?), and I'm afraid we'll miss some talent. At the same time we obviously can't afford to hire someone with no experience as a programmer whatsoever, and I'd rather not do whiteboard coding.

Your fears are misplaced. Encourage them to ask questions and/or document assumptions. Tell them it's ok and encouraged to use Google/ StackOverflow/ whatever.

Another good practice sometimes used (esp. on Craigslist or mailing-list/web-based job ads) is to email/post candidates a very simple problem, the solution to which they have to attach to an application. This is to weed out timewasters and people with no interest or experience or motivation; but again can be used to give them a flavor of what sort of code they'll have to write.

At the moment I'm considering a mixed solution, i.e. to either require contribution to open source projects, or a GitHub repository, or a Stack Overflow profile; or do a technical challenge.

For people who already have demonstrated proficiency by either of those, then either pick a harder problem, or describe them your problem domain and current issues and jointly define some problem with them - this also gives them insight into the job. (Or you could just ask them the standard question and let them breeze through it or whiteboard describe how to do it, but that's wasting both of your time and not challenging them - Joel and others advise don't.)

And we've found that having candidates code for an hour before interviews helps calm them down and get them in the right frame of mind for questions (often about the coding problems) later.

Yes. As long as you supply the guidelines above about how to approach it and what is being looked for. Not just treat it like some binary pass/fail filter with undefined criteria.


I think you should definitely set up programming questions in the interview. I'm currently doing a one year Placement and my manager told me when they were interviewing for the current position I'm at, they had applicants who didn't know what arrays were or how to use a for loop!

I would stay away from pre-interview exercises as they can easily find solutions online (i.e. asking your exercise questions on Stackoverflow).

IMO Coding Bat has a good set of questions for Junior developers (I was able to do these before I started working), so that you can filter out the completely incompetent ones from the competent.

Regarding databases I would say query them on simple SQL statements such as Select, Update, Insert etc.

Furthermore, please understand that the majority of these Junior Devs. have no experience in interviews and it will show (nervousness, making simple mistakes etc.). Don't let this be the main factor in your final decision.They should however, have the ability to show you that they're competent programmers regardless!


I'll risk giving an unpopular answer…

I see no point in testing at all.

Just hire them with a probatory period, which allows you to fire them for any reason or for no reason at all during the probation, and put them to work immediately as if they were members of the team.

The probatory period should be long enough to give you an idea about werther you like them or not, much better than any test. The only thing that a test will measure, is how much they are good at doing tests… but you don't hire them to complete tests, you hire them to actually do some real work!

If you problem is picking among multiple candidates, just use all the data you have: their CV, their interview, their published code.

  • 1
    I think the reason why this is unpopular is because it costs the company a lot more money than simply testing before hiring. Apr 20, 2015 at 5:00
  • @JuhaUntinen it may be, but results aren't cheap, and testing yields crap results.
    – o0'.
    Apr 20, 2015 at 8:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .