Take-home projects are a band-pass filter on hiring. The best candidates won't bother, the worst candidates can't complete.

Though, honestly, it seems like you could save everyone's time and get similar results screening for university GPA > 3.8.

GPA is maybe only relevant if you are very junior or it is the only thing on your resume. No one is going to care at all about your GPA once you are more than a few years into your career

They aren't looking for the best though. They are looking for diverse.

GPA's are meaningless now. Grade inflation, etc. Just like the adversity score that will be added to the SAT... making it meaningless... IQ tests are going to replace GPAs for hiring in general.

For developers at least you don’t need any kind of artificial scoring. If they pass the phone screen, just bring them in and pair with them on a contrived problem - you will know very quick if they are a fit or not.

Calling this "work for free" seems a bit misleading. It's not like the take home assignment is helping the employer build something.

I don't see it as unpaid labor anymore than I would see the interview process itself as unpaid labor.

The line is indeed blurry, but if it were to be drawn somewhere, I don't think it's unreasonable to draw it at being asked to create a small but complete instance of the work you are being hired for that may take anywhere from hours to days, as opposed to being asked to see existing examples.

It would be nice if there were some third party that companies could turn over the results of these interview project assignments to, which would allow release of that information to other companies upon authorization by the candidate.

The idea is that you interview at some place that asks for a substantial take-home interview project. You do it. Afterwards, the project requirements and your solution are turned over to third party.

Then the next place you interview wants a project, too. You can point them at the third party and authorize release of your info to them. They can then see what that first company asked for, see what you provided, and if it covers the same kind of things that their project does they might then accept it instead of making you do another one.

The parent post presented an arguable opinion, i.e. the process is unreasonably arduous, which is potentially at odds with their stated values, and, perhaps more importantly, the process was not communicated well. Your reply was to insult them.

Communication is a two way street, I wouldn't immediately blame one party, although you would think they would mention the process from the outset.

'unreasonably arduous'- how would you define that. Really a few phone convos, a take home assignment and showing up for interview is unreasonably arduous for a diverse candidate?

This actually shows to me that the company is not willing to hire someone diverse without properly vetting them. Good for them.

It was an observation. I can't help if they were insulted.

why would they work for free?