Did you often take tests? How do you feel about them?

Question

Career in IT

I saw different opinions about the test task. In my case it happened like this. Started looking for a job. The first interview with hr — everything went well. The second with hr and project manager - everything is ok. They gave me a test for a week (!). I did it - they immediately hired a remote junior with a salary above the average for the city ... This is the first experience of changing jobs (from science to game dev).
Why, then, constantly advice about the fact that you do not need to do a test task? Why are tests so harmful? I sincerely don't understand.

Answer 1

People are different and react differently to different types of interviews. I love test interviews because I get lost in technical interviews and can not answer even very simple questions or even solve very simple problems. Often the reason for the negative attitude towards the test is explained by the fact that the applicant spends personal time and effort on the task, and then they do not take it. Four unsuccessful attempts - a month of free work.

Answer 2

When you want to ask "why they are talking", you need to ask those who speak, and not strangers. Otherwise, you are taking the problem out of context. Maybe (and here it is) we are not talking about all test tasks and not in any case? Have you thought about it?
The second way you take the problem out of context is that you probably didn’t notice that when they talk about the dangers of test tasks (more precisely, that this is a bad sign), we are not talking about a candidate without a story. When it comes to a more or less qualified specialist, the employer acts as a seller, not a buyer, he must "sell" the conditions of work in the company. And if he rolls out a task, it means that the company is slipshod or very formal about hiring, or they think too much about themselves, or they simply don’t understand why they need such a specialist, and, accordingly, they cannot assess his working qualities quickly and immediately. Only this is not directly related to your case, because you needed the job more than they needed the worker.

Answer 3

In my history , absolutely everyone who gave me test tasks could not even formulate the criteria for successful completion of the test task - phrases like "we'll see, we'll evaluate" is a controversial topic (they offer to participate in the "competition" without voicing the conditions for winning it).
As a result, such "test" ones are sent out and distributed to everyone (sometimes without even reading the resume), offering to waste time on useless work.
I usually issue a counteroffer of "online coding" and solving the same issues online - in 99.9% the employer merges and says, for example, that he "does not have time" or "we do not have such a practice."
What for me immediately means a "red flag" for any further negotiations with this type of employers (it means they do not know how and do not know how to evaluate the applicant, while offering to spend the applicant's time on them, who themselves do not want to spend on it)
P. WITH.
such a cool story

Answer 4

You have Survivor Error on your face. Now rub it on others.
I have a negative attitude, because I put on the employer from a high bell tower, he is no different from other similar employers, but they imagine themselves to be heroes of science. This rule also works in reverse.
Their position is very similar to the position of a film critic (employer) and the director who released the film. The director shoots a film with his team day and night, and the employer, with a free ticket, also shrugged off, they say, your film is bullshit.
Only one employer paid me for my time, the rest, like children, rub something into me about “We don’t pay you, because we waste time on you”, while in 8 out of 10 cases they are so offended by the question “Payment?”, that get personal. Very professional.
At the same time, as a rule, test tasks are nonsense of a schizo or writing algorithms that they cannot come up with and they need new ideas. Although sometimes you need to write a boilerplate (copy-paste) for three days on end for the sake of nothing. Very interesting, I really love this.
You can argue for a long time, but the test ones are bullshit. An employee who does not pull will merge even without your test ones. It has been tested on many, and one glance at a person is enough for me to understand whether it pulls or not. An employee who is a guru but does not know how to communicate in a team will be ballast. For he misunderstood something there, did something wrong, and in case of stress, he generally withdraws into himself and knocks him out of the team.
Therefore, your question looks more like a mockery where you can replace the text with "Well, fuckers, ate, ko-ko-ko, labor, May, 3 days plowed for free and" I sincerely do not understand "what's wrong with that."

Answer 5

Honestly, the test ones are usually like this - write us such and such crap. Assignments are boring. Relatively normal feedback is rarely given, once they gave feedback: "done right, but very obscene" . In reality, even the cunning Chinese simply gave me some kind of "game" for coders, and one company from Estonia immediately indicates a link to the quest in the vacancy.

Answer 6

1 time.
At the beginning of a career.
I treat badly.
But it is clear that the current juniors, with their abundance in the labor market, are nowhere without it.
Because more or less experienced programmers, who already easily do without test tasks when interviewing for a vacancy, like to show off in front of beginners.
Plus, an important point: if you had not been taken 5 times - which is easily possible - it turns out that you have killed more than a month in vain. And it's embarrassing.
And then beginners start writing angry articles that test articles are harmful.
Correct approach:
https://habr.com/ru/company/wrike/blog/462787/