2

When I was reading Asked to complete interview exercise, but ignoring GitHub work demoing expertise? and imagined beeing in this situation, I concluded I would not even have the time to take this test. Not to mention, doing it for multiple companys.

But all the posts and comments on that OP made the impression it would make me appear arrogant and it's anyway unlikely they would omit this excercise.

Are companys with an regulated hiring process that inflexible as mentioned in the linked post, so that chances of getting hired would be limited due to my lack of available time to perform test excercies?

Or is the mentioned case not that common at all?

Improve this question
12
  • 1
    It seems extreme to me, I've never been asked to test for that long. It will be interesting to hear what others have to say. – Kilisi Mar 9 '16 at 10:39
  • 1
    "Real questions have answers. Rather than explaining why your situation is terrible, or why your boss/coworker makes you unhappy, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, click here." I've my post seems to be offtopic because of that I'll just edit it out to make the purpose of the OP more clear, sicne I'm actually asking straight question which is not related to my situation. Also I wouldn't call my situation terrible in anyway. @Whoever VTC'ed – Zaibis Mar 9 '16 at 10:40
  • @Kilisi: Same over here, but the post seems to be off-topic. – Zaibis Mar 9 '16 at 10:52
  • 1
    I wouldn't say it's an advice question but this is likely too broad for a definitive answer as that all depends on industry, location and experience level of the position. You also have to remember that plenty of companies simply suck at hiring so what's common might not be what's best. I think a more useful question would be "When should I consider requiring a take-at-home exercise in my hiring process?" – Lilienthal♦ Mar 9 '16 at 11:23
  • 2
    Look at it this way: if you don't want to go through with the test you don't have to! You simply keep applying to different companies until you find one you like, and which won't make you write a silly test. What people were trying to get the OP of that other question to understand is that once a company has decided to perform the test it's very unlikely that you can ask for special treatment regarding the matter. – AndreiROM Mar 9 '16 at 14:44
2

I could imagine that permanent roles undergo considerably more scrutiny than contractors, as the latter are typically more easily let go.

Being a contractor, I was subjected to a 1-hour test in the final stage of the interviewing process for my current role.

Personally, I found the 1-hour test to be OK, as it was timed and the object quite clearly was not to finish the tasks, but to reveal ones thinking and work habits.

Having said that, an hour is just about the maximum I will spend, as I cannot see what a additional 3 hours would reveal.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    +1 I agree with the one hour is ample time, if most local companies were stipulating 3 hours though, then it would definitely affect hireability. – Kilisi Mar 9 '16 at 10:54
  • I've had tests with intriguing tasks and one which reflected rather badly on the hiring company. In both cases, I felt it was a hour well-spent. – morsor Mar 9 '16 at 12:46

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