With the tests in the pairing exercise, do you expect a senior to solve four of them and a senior+ all five of them? Or do you pick one or two based on level and just do those?
Hi Dan! My general rule of thumb when designing the method was to start a senior candidate at Level 3 (mid-level) and let them go from there. With only 40 minutes and also being realistic about skill level, asking a senior candidate to change a button colour is a waste of time.
Thanks for those insights. AI cheating is real, and I’ve seen two extreme schools of thought when it comes to handling it. The first go back to face to face interviews (where it’s still possible), and the second adopt a more liberal approach similar to the one you’ve share. I love how your approach handles the “shame” factor in using AI tools. What’s been your experience with the quality of engineers you’ve hired with this process compared to other approaches? Also do you have any data on what other tech companies are doing these days (esp hi tech)?
This is very good
With the tests in the pairing exercise, do you expect a senior to solve four of them and a senior+ all five of them? Or do you pick one or two based on level and just do those?
Hi Dan! My general rule of thumb when designing the method was to start a senior candidate at Level 3 (mid-level) and let them go from there. With only 40 minutes and also being realistic about skill level, asking a senior candidate to change a button colour is a waste of time.
Thanks for those insights. AI cheating is real, and I’ve seen two extreme schools of thought when it comes to handling it. The first go back to face to face interviews (where it’s still possible), and the second adopt a more liberal approach similar to the one you’ve share. I love how your approach handles the “shame” factor in using AI tools. What’s been your experience with the quality of engineers you’ve hired with this process compared to other approaches? Also do you have any data on what other tech companies are doing these days (esp hi tech)?