Thanks for the feedback. Our recruitment process is:
1. Screening test (~10-20min)
2. Outline of salary range, working environment, product, and of remaining recruitment process (our "FAQ").
3. Final "software architecture" test (3.5hrs - 6hrs avg, 9hr max)
4. ~2 1hr interviews
5. Offer
Note that after the 10-20min screening test we disclose the rest of the process in detail as a matter of course.
I understand that you might disagree with this process but I think it's reasonably transparent to participants. We've hired several people in the past year and I hope to continue to hire into the future.
Out of curiosity, how would you structure an ideal recruitment process? I'm genuinely interested in alternative methods of assessing people's ability to write high-quality code. (I've found CV/portfolio-based assessments unreliable, but it may be that I haven't done them "right").
If you have any additional criticisms of the process I'm open to discussion. Hiring is tricky and I'm sure we can do better.
"I'm genuinely interested in alternative methods of assessing people's ability to write high-quality code."
Step 1: Specify what high quality code IS.
Step 2: Ask them to write high quality code.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit.
You are taking the shotgun approach of asking everyone open-ended questions and if they don't strike your particular nerve, you dismiss them. You're not testing for ability, you test for luck. Most people are capable of following directions, but you are not providing direction. You just expect people to kinda know what it is that you're looking for.
kept mum for long but happened to me too, although last year.
8 hours challenge, no rejection response until I asked, no reason why submission was considered bad. Won't recommend applying.
Their process is completely broken (they require candidates to spend hours on at least two assignments before even an initial interview).
This might be OK if an applicant had no CV or portfolio. In any case, most companies (large and small) thankfully don't do this.