I see more and more companies doing this small projects type of initial screening. I like it. But time is actually an expensive cost. Suppose your candidate makes $130,000 per year, which isn't even a high salary in bay area. Then if he/she spends 15 hours on this project, then we are talking about 1000 bucks. Now that is quite a cost, isn't it?
Honestly compared to a white board programming puzzle, such projects always make more sense to me. But most companies will still do white-boards during on-site after the initial project. And although I like most of those projects, even in my case, if I happen to be busy, then I do feel like they are annoying. I'd rather spend my time doing what I was busy doing, or learning new stuff, or working on my pet projects, rather than working on a project that may or may not make sense to me, just to show to other people that I can code, and I can write clean code. Let alone I happen to know some friends who just hate those projects and will never do them unless it's from their dream company. Plus, there are people who are better communicator when they talk face-to-face. Then it's really hard to say if such project is really better than white-boarding for that type of candidates. But it's still way better than those 30-minutes online coding over a phone interview. That's the one I hate most.. Even Skype interview is better than phone interview.
Instead of presenting the "screening project", they present their open source project and its source code.
As in working for you for free, and on a WE to boot?
For a student or someone who is unemployed, that might work.
For someone with a job and a family life, I don't think so. Especially if that person can command a $120k+ salary.
We invited people to come up with ways to improve the job market, which is clearly broken. Some chose to do that, while others had their own apps already in mind.
One group made contactr.io, an extension for Google Chrome that shows you the email addresses of the founders of the company website you're visiting.
Another group is working on a project called livelyhood, which will be a sort of LinkedIn 2.0 where candidates can share their work easily.
The participants worked for themselves, helped each other, and walked away with a larger network of people who recognized their qualities.
This weekend was specifically designed for people whose resumes would not automatically "command" a $120K salary. They were the ones languishing in the slush pile.
We held the event on a weekend so that people who already had jobs, albeit jobs they were unhappy with, could join us.
If you like your weekends more than good work, then it definitely would not have been the right fit.
Seriously????
I'm sure the OP means well, and it may have been a success for them, but I don't know anyone in my circle who would participate in something like this, unless they were utterly desperate for a job. I thought there was a serious talent crunch? Who is courting whom?
I wonder what sort of engineers self-select in a process like this?
Unemployed people have lots of time. Understand that and you'll understand why a weekend like this makes sense.
One reason they're unemployed is that they don't know how to demonstrate their value. A lot of engineers are actually poor at communicating, and not that great at resumes.
This weekend was for them.
15 weekends of hard work just to change job? Yes, very efficient.
The arrogance of your approach makes my blood boil.
We had several positions to fill, and we helped good candidates whom we couldn't hire get in touch with other employers. The chances of an interview were much higher than 1 in 15. In fact, we made eight interview offers.
The weekend was totally voluntary, not cheap for us, and everyone knew exactly what they were getting into. It was one weekend, not 15 weekends.
If you think weekends like that are inefficient, consider the job market as it operates currently. If you can think of a more efficient way for it to work, I would love to hear it.
The bit where you call me stupid...
http://blog.sfgate.com/gettowork/2014/10/31/staffup-offers-a...
We recognized that resumes were poor indicators of performance. In fact, we believe that the only thing that correlates with performance -- is performance. A study that Google released last year supports that.
The solution we came up with was to invite people to work on projects for a weekend at no cost other than their time. They chose what they wanted to work on together.
In a sense, we were batch processing applicants while gathering much richer information than resumes provide. Strong candidates we didn't hire, we shared in the Sequoia network.
We ended up making eight interview offers (several candidates decided to work elsewhere), and we hired one engineer.
The whole event was inspired by this essay: http://brookeallen.com/pages/archives/1234