They are relevant enough that the prior poster felt the need to smear them.
> if the effect is the same
The claimed effect is, at this point, purely hypothetical and indeed runs contrary to my experience.
> An easy switch would be to convert take homes to onsite work.
Generally speaking, an onsite task like you describe seems like a reasonable choice for a company to make. However, this strikes me as worse for the affected groups that reaperducer was concerned about:
- It requires scheduling an even larger fixed block of time outside one's normal job/life responsibilities. A take-home assignment at least allows for flexibility for when you work on it. It strikes me that time-poor candidates would appreciate the flexibility.
- It would no longer be a "blind audition". When I've reviewed take-home assignments, I don't know anything about the candidate except that the code. It strikes me as a good way to resist unconscious bias from seeping in.
I think you’re reading malevolence where none is intended. Simply pointing unintended consequences is not smearing. While it is true that the effect is merely claimed, as I know of no relevant study, your anecdote equally meaningless.
The the on-site solution remains a blind audition if the people doing the evaluation are not the people administering the test. This is exactly the case for a take home assignment, only now it is timeboxed and with access relatively timely help if needed.
The purpose of the blind audition is not to hide the identity of person being interviewed, as much as it is to enforce an objective standard and remove bias. If the rubric is, “Accept all that got automatic evaluation score of at least X”, then that achieves a similar goal.
As far as time-poor people, never underestimate the desire of having a clearly defined block of time. Of course, onsite or not can always be optional as well.
> I think you’re reading malevolence where none is intended. Simply pointing unintended consequences is not smearing.
Pointing out (potential) unintended consequences is fine, even welcome.
Putting sexist remarks in the mouths of others is a smear, even if it is done merely flippantly.
> While it is true that the effect is merely claimed, as I know of no relevant study, your anecdote equally meaningless.
Anecdote is more meaningful than mere speculation. Even without statistically valid data, examples that are contrary to our expectations can bring to light factors that we had not previously considered.
> The the on-site solution remains a blind audition if the people doing the evaluation are not the people administering the test...The purpose of the blind audition is not to hide the identity of person being interviewed, as much as it is to enforce an objective standard and remove bias. If the rubric is, “Accept all that got automatic evaluation score of at least X”, then that achieves a similar goal.
A fair point.
> This is exactly the case for a take home assignment, only now it is timeboxed and with access relatively timely help if needed.
The point about timely help is definitely a point in favor of on-site work tests. But working in a timebox can also be stressful. A take-home assignment without artificial deadlines (i.e. don't schedule any interviews until after the assignment was received and approved) can eliminate that stress.
> As far as time-poor people, never underestimate the desire of having a clearly defined block of time. Of course, onsite or not can always be optional as well.
I think this hits on an important point, and one that I think would benefit from research and expertise I don't have. I'd hazard a guess that it depends upon why one is time poor.
If the candidate is intelligent and capable, but somewhat disorderly, then they would probably benefit from a structured, on-site task.
If the candidate is more organized but simply has a difficult and rigid schedule (which is actually something I would expect true, for example, of a working mother) then a take-home assignment might be better.
I don't know that either one is superior in all cases. Honestly, I think the best option would be to give the candidate a choice.
They are relevant enough that the prior poster felt the need to smear them.
> if the effect is the same
The claimed effect is, at this point, purely hypothetical and indeed runs contrary to my experience.
> An easy switch would be to convert take homes to onsite work.
Generally speaking, an onsite task like you describe seems like a reasonable choice for a company to make. However, this strikes me as worse for the affected groups that reaperducer was concerned about:
- It requires scheduling an even larger fixed block of time outside one's normal job/life responsibilities. A take-home assignment at least allows for flexibility for when you work on it. It strikes me that time-poor candidates would appreciate the flexibility.
- It would no longer be a "blind audition". When I've reviewed take-home assignments, I don't know anything about the candidate except that the code. It strikes me as a good way to resist unconscious bias from seeping in.