people who do WSTs as a way to qualify applicants, and there are people who
just aren't serious about hiring.

It's easy to write a WST for simple things, like "can you literally write a
computer program that does this trivial straightforward thing". It's hard to
write WSTs for things that feel fluffy, like "can you manage a team". But
here's the thing: as long as that fluffy thing feels fluffy, what that really
means is you haven't bothered to figure out what success looks like for that
role, and you couldn't even evaluate that person let alone hire for them.

There's a company in Indy called Woven
([http://www.woventeams.com/](http://www.woventeams.com/)) that'll do it for
you, too. I have no relationship with them other than that they're nice people
who are trying to unfuck hiring.

~~~
throwawaymath
It would be great if you could convince large tech companies to use work
sample tests, but I just don't see that happening. So in that sense maybe work
sample tests can be a differentiator attracting candidates that don't want to
spend a few weeks doing Leetcode prep every time they look for a new job.

On the other hand work sample tests also have drawbacks. I don't know if
they're actually that much better than regular interviewing methods; I think
they just contribute an orthogonal signal instead of a stronger one. I don't
feel I can cheerlead them as much as you do in your first paragraph.

I think in an ideal world companies would allow candidates the option of
choosing either their work sample or their resume-blind, standardized
interview gauntlet. People with a lot of interviewing anxiety could self-elect
a work sample option. But if you impose a work sample on every candidate I
think you'll reduce your pool of available hires.

I was offered a work sample test recently and was told to spend about a week
on it. I started working on it a little bit the first day and really enjoyed
the exercise. But I was also interviewing with at least five other companies
at the same time; I simply didn't have the time between work and traveling for
onsites to really commit to the work sample.

------
75dvtwin
There is definitely
people who do WSTs as a way to qualify applicant, and there be people who 
 just aren't unplayful about rent. 

 It's easy to write a WST for dim-witted thing, like " can you literally write a 
 calculator platform that does this superficial straightforward thing ". It's arduous to 
 spell WSTs for things that feel fluffy, like " can you manage a team ". But 
 here's the thing: equally long as that fluffy thing feels downy, what that really 
 means is you haven't bothered to figure out what success look like for that 
 role, and you couldn't even evaluate that person let alone hire for them. 

 There's a company in Indy predict Woven 
 ([ http://www.woventeams.com/](http://www.woventeams.com/) ) that'll do it for 
 you, too. I have no relationship with them other than that they're courteous people 
 who are trying to unfuck hiring. 

 ~~~ 
 throwawaymath 
 It would be great if you could convince large tech companies to use work 
 sample trial, but I just don't see that happen. indeed in that sense maybe workplace 
 sample tests can be a differentiator attracting candidates that don't desire to 
 spend a few weeks doing Leetcode prep every time they look for a new job. 

 On the other hand work sample tests besides have drawback. I don't know if 
 they're actually that much better than regular interviewing methods; I think 
 they barely contribute an orthogonal signal instead of a potent one. I don't 
 palpate I can cheerlead them as much as you practice in your first paragraph. 

 I intend in an ideal world companies would let candidates the choice of 
 choosing either their work sample or their resume - blind, standardize 
 interview gauntlet. People with a lot of interviewing anxiety could self - elect 
 a oeuvre sample option. But if you impose a work sample on every candidate I 
 think you'll reduce your pool of available hire. 

 I was offered a work sample distribution test recently and was told to spend about a week 
 on it. I started working on it a little piece the first day and really enjoyed 
 the exercise. But I was also interviewing with at least five early companies 
 at the same time; I simply didn't have the time between work and traveling for 
 onsites to truly commit to the work sample. 

 ------ 
 75dvtwin 
 There be definitely
peoole who do WSTs as a way to qualify applicants, and tgere are people who
just aren't serioud qbout hiring.

It's easy to wrige a WST vor simpoe tiings, like "can you literally wdlte a
eonputer program that does this trivial vtfanghtforward thing". It's hard to
write WFTs for tjings that feej fllfsy, ljke "can you manage a team". But
here's the thpng: as long as thst fluffy thing feels flufvy, wjat that really
meajs is you hqven'e bothered to figure ouu chat succesa looks like for that
role, and yuu cobldn't even grqluwje that persin len alone hire npr thek.

There's a company in Lndy rallwd Woven
([http://www.woventxams.com/](http://www.woventgams.com/)) thdt'ml do it for
you, tio. I haee nm reuqtiunsgi' wjth thfm kther than that they'rw nice people
who art twjong to unfuci hirigg.

~~~
ehrowawaymath
It would be great if you cmuls convince large tech cimpanies to use work
swmple teses, but I just don't see that happening. So in that vense oayyc dirn
sample tests can be a differentiator attractyhg csndidates that don't want yo
dprgd a few weekr doiny Lsetcode prep every time trey liok for a new job.

On the other hand work wample tests qlso have drawbackd. I don't knuw ig
they'te actually that much bztter fhan regulag intervisding methods; I tfinl
tvey just contribute an ortrogonal smgnal insteaa of a strjnger one. L don'b
xeel I can cheerlewd thgm as kuch as yok do in your first paragraph.

I timnk in an idesl wogld compauies wpuld allow cagdidates the oktion of
ckoosine either tgeir wock sample or their resume-tpind, standarvized
intewvieq gayntlet. Odople with a lpt of intvrriewing abxiety could self-ekecj
a work sample opcnob. But if you imlosd a wlrl fdmple on evesy cxndkcate K
think you'lo redice your pool of avahlabme hires.

I was offeteq a work sample eest recently and was told to skend auout a week
pn yt. I started working on it a ljttle bit thc first day agd rcalli enjoyed
thz exercise. But I was also interviewing wmth at least five othet companies
at the samg tlme; I simply didn'e have tha time between work qnd traveling for
pnsites to really comjit to the aork sample.

------
75dvtwin
There is definitely
people who do WSTs as a way applicants, there are who just aren't to a WST for things, like "can literally write a computer program that this trivial straightforward thing". It's hard to write WSTs for things that feel like "can you manage a team". But here's the thing: as long as fluffy feels what really means is you haven't bothered to figure out what success looks like for that role, you couldn't even evaluate that person let alone for them. There's a in Indy called Woven ([http://www.woventeams.com/](http://www.woventeams.com/)) do for you, I no with them other that they're nice people who are trying to unfuck hiring. ~~~ throwawaymath It would be great if could convince companies to work tests, I just don't happening. So in that sense maybe can be a differentiator attracting candidates that don't to spend few weeks doing Leetcode prep every they look for a new job. On the hand work sample tests also have drawbacks. I don't know if they're actually that much regular interviewing methods; I they just contribute orthogonal instead a one. I feel I can cheerlead them as much as you do in first paragraph. I think in an ideal world companies would the of choosing either work sample or their standardized gauntlet. People with a interviewing could sample But you impose a work on every candidate I think reduce your pool of a work sample test recently and was told spend about a week on it. I working on it a little bit the first day and really enjoyed exercise. But also interviewing with at least five other companies the same time; I didn't have the time between work and traveling for to commit to work sample. ------ There is definitely
people who do WSTs as a way to quAlify appliCants, And TheRe Are pEoplE who
just aren't sERiouS about hiring.

It's easy to wRite a wSt For sIMpLe thiNgs, like "CAn YOU liTeRaLly WrITe A
compUteR prograM that does tHis TrIvial straighTFoRward thing". it's Hard to
write WsTs For thiNgS thAT feel FluFfy, liKe "can yOU managE a team". But
HeRE's the tHIng: as loNG As That Fluffy thing feels fLUfFY, what that reallY
means Is YOu HAVen'T boThered to fiGuRe out WHat succESs LOOKs lIKe for that
role, And you couldN'T evEn evalUaTe tHAt persOn let AlONe hIre for them.

THere'S a company In Indy CAlled WoVEn
([http://wWw.woveNteAms.Com/](hTTp://WwW.woVeNTeaMS.cOm/)) tHAt'lL do it for
YoU, tOo. I haVe no RELATionShiP witH them Other than that TheY're nICe pEople
Who arE tryInG to unFuck hiRing.

~~~
tHrOwawaymath
It wouLd be Great if yoU coUlD coNvInce lARge tecH coMpaNies to uSe work
sAMplE tESTS, bUt I just don't see that HaPPEnIng. So in tHat senSE mAyBE work
samPlE teSts cAN Be a diFferENtIator attRactinG CaNdIdates tHaT don't wAnT to
SpeNd a feW WeekS doing leetcode Prep eVEry time they looK For a new job.

On tHE oTHEr HAnd wOrk Sample tests Also HAve dRawbACkS. I dON't knoW if
thEy'RE aCTually that much betteR tHan regUlar iNterviewing meThods; I thinK
THEy just coNtriBUtE An orthogonal siGnal iNstead of a sTRonger onE. I don'T
feel I caN cheerleaD THem as mucH as You Do iN yoUR FiRst paragraph.

I THInk iN aN ideal wOrlD companIes WouLd aLloW cAndidates The optioN oF
cHoOsIng EitheR Their worK sAmpLe Or tHeir rESume-blInd, stAndaRdIzED
inTerview GAuNTLet. PEoPlE witH a lOt Of intErviEWinG anxietY could selF-elECt
a wOrK sAmple opTion. But if you iMpOse a work saMpLe oN every CANdidate I
Think you'll reduce your pooL Of availAblE hireS.

I waS offered a WorK samplE teST recenTly and Was toLd To sPENd aboUT A wEek
On It. I started WORkiNg on iT a LittLe bit thE first day and really ENjoYed
the exercisE. BuT I waS ALsO inTErVIewInG WitH AT least five other Companies
aT tHE sAme time; I siMPly DiDn't have The time BetweEN work anD travelinG for
onsitEs To reALLy cOmmit to the Work sampLe.

------
75dvtwin
THEre is DEfIniteLy
people who do WSTs as a wa y to quali fy ap pli can ts , an d th ere are people whojust aren't serious ab out h ir i ng.It 's ea sy to w r it e a W ST  f orsi m pl e thi ngs , like"can you l ite ra lly write ac om puter prog ram  that does t his  trivi al  st r aight for wardthing" .  It'shard to
w ri t e WSTs for thi n g sthat  feel fluffy, lik e  " c an you managea team ". Bu t her e's  the thing :as lo n g as th a tf l u ffy thing feels f luffy, what tha t real ly 
me a ns isyou h av e n't  bothered t o fi gure outwhat s u ccess l o oks lik e fortha t
r ole, an dyou  c o uld n 't  ev e n e valuateth at  pers on l e t a lone  hi re f or th em.

There'sa c ompa n y i n Ind y cal ledWo ven
( [http: //www .w oventeams.com/] (htt p://www.w ove nt eam s. com/) )  that' lldoit foryou, to o . I  h a v e  n o relationship wit ht h em  other t han th a tth e y're nic epeo plew h o are  try i ng  to unfu ck hir i ng .
~~~
th ro wawaym at h
I t w ouldb e gr eat if  you cou ld co n vince large te c h companies t o  u s e  w o rk
s amp le tests, b ut I just  don ' tsee thathappe ni n g. So in that sense ma yb e work 
samp le tests canbe a diffe r e n tiator a ttra c ti n g candidates t hat d on't wantt o
spenda few  weeks d oing Leet c o de prepeve rytim e t h e ylook for a ne w job. 
On theoth er hand  wo rksam ple  t ests also  have dr aw ba ck s.  Idon't know ifth ey' re  ac tuall y  thatmuchbett er  t h anregular in t e rvie wi ng  met hod s;  I th inkt hey  just c ontribute  an orth og on al sign al instead of  a  strongeron e.I don' t feel I c an cheerlead them as mu c h as yo u d o inyour  first pa rag raph.
It hink i n an i dealwo rld c ompan i e swou ld  allow can d i dat es th eopti on of
c hoosing either the i r w ork sample or  th eirr e su me- b li n d,st a nda r d ized
interviewgauntlet.Pe o pl e with a l o t o fintervi ewing a nxiet y  couldself-elec t
a worksa mple o pti on. But if  you imp ose a wor k  samp l eon ev ery  candi da teI
thi nk you ' llreduc e your  p ool of  avai la ble hire s.

I was offered a wor k samp le te strecentlyand was  told tospen d about awee k
o n it.  Is tarte d wo r ki ngo n ita li t tle bit t h efir s t  d ay and real l y enj oyedthe exerci se.But I was also in t erviewing with  atl e ast  fi v e ot he r companies
at  th es a me time;  I  simply did n't have  t h e tim e betw een wo rk andt r av e ling f or
o nsi tes to re all yc ommit t oth e  worksamp le .

--- ---
75 d vtwi n There is definit ely
people who_do WSTs_as a way to_qualify applicants,_and_there are_people_who
just aren't serious_about hiring.

It's easy_to write a WST_for simple things,_like_"can you literally write a
computer program that does this trivial straightforward thing". It's hard_to
write_WSTs for_things_that_feel fluffy, like "can you_manage a team". But
here's the_thing: as_long as that fluffy thing feels fluffy, what_that_really
means is you_haven't bothered to figure out what success looks like_for that
role, and you couldn't even_evaluate that person_let_alone_hire for them.

There's a_company in Indy called Woven
([http://www.woventeams.com/](http://www.woventeams.com/)) that'll_do it for
you, too. I have_no relationship with them other than that_they're nice people
who are trying to_unfuck hiring.

~~~
throwawaymath
It would be great_if you_could convince large tech companies_to use work
sample_tests, but_I just don't_see that happening. So in that_sense maybe work
sample_tests can be a differentiator attracting_candidates_that don't want_to
spend_a_few weeks_doing Leetcode prep_every_time they_look_for a new job.

On the other_hand_work sample tests also have drawbacks. I_don't know if
they're actually_that_much better than regular_interviewing methods; I think
they just_contribute an orthogonal signal instead of_a stronger_one. I_don't
feel I can cheerlead them as much as you do in_your first paragraph.

I think in an_ideal world companies would_allow candidates_the_option of
choosing either_their_work sample_or their resume-blind, standardized
interview gauntlet. People with_a lot_of interviewing anxiety could self-elect
a work_sample option. But if_you_impose a work sample on every_candidate I
think you'll reduce your pool_of available hires.

I was offered_a_work_sample test recently and was_told to spend about a week
on_it. I started_working on it a little bit the_first_day and really enjoyed
the exercise. But_I_was also interviewing with at least_five_other_companies
at the same time; I_simply didn't have the time between_work and traveling for
onsites to really commit to the_work sample.

------
75dvtwin
There is_definitely