They are considered the best and give above average compensation. Is your company considered the best, properly paying top talent, to employ the same schema? Those tests were done to distill the top end performers with the accepted risk of huge number of false negatives. Now every mom-and-dad shop is trying to use it. That's why I call it insanity, getting extreme practices into mainstream in our industry.
Yes, this was true of every job I've ever had. Maybe I've been lucky.
I don't really understand why asking someone to do a small amount of programming for a programming job interview, when they claim to be an experienced programmer, is any sort of "extreme" practice.
You've expressed a lot of complaints about coding quizzes, some that many people here share, and some that I agree with.
I would urge you to spend your energy making a specific alternative proposal that companies can actually use. The OP's proposal isn't something companies can actually use for all candidates, even if they could use it for him.
I'm very interested in how to better screen and interview devs. I want to improve my process. But no process I've ever been exposed to is even close to perfect.
Make sure your proposal considers the company's perspective. The ideal process will benefit both the candidate and the company, but something that's pleasant for the candidate and unpleasant for the company will never get adopted no matter how good it sounds.
If it takes longer to verify than it does to test your coding ability directly, why shouldn't I just ask you to do some coding? The challenges you took might be less impressive or well known than you think. The challenges you took might not say much about you if they were team challenges.
> including advanced snippets of code/projects on GitHub demonstrating your dominance in that area
That doesn't help me compare one candidate to another at all. Nor does your github demonstrate dominance in anything, unless your project is React or something like that. Github is a vast wasteland of barely used code.
> doing silly low-end coding quizzes seems like a total waste of time
It's going to take about as long to get through job interviews no matter how the interview is conducted. You can spend it programming, or you can spend it talking. The time spent is an investment in getting the job. If you don't actually want the job, then you're right, it's a waste of your time.
What's not going to happen, ever, is someone will take the initiative to read through all your work, verify the things on your CV, and offer you a great high paying job without going through the interview process.
> Can't you really see that?
To be very frank and honest, given all the reasoning and experience I've shared with you, this question gives me the impression that you might be very inexperienced.
> It's just super arrogant.
What, precisely, is arrogant? What are you talking about specifically? Using Hackerrank in an interview? Having an interview at all? Not noticing that you're a rockstar before talking to you?
Please take some time to articulate what the right interview process is, rather than spend any more time passing blanket judgements.
It isn't and that's exactly what you should expect.
Nonetheless it shouldn't be too much to ask that the test and interview ask relevant questions and that the company puts skin in the game that is commensurate with the sacrifice being asked of the candidate.
In other words, 5 minute screener tests are cool but if you make me do a weekend project you put me up in a 5 star hotel.
