💻 Live Coding Challenges vs. Take-Home Tests: Which is Better? 🤔 When it comes to technical interviews, both live coding challenges and take-home tests offer unique benefits: 🚀 Live Coding Challenges: - Real-time problem-solving: Shows your ability to think on your feet and adapt quickly. - Collaboration under pressure: Simulates teamwork, demonstrating communication skills in high-pressure environments. - Immediate feedback: Speeds up the interview process with on-the-spot insights. 📝 Take-Home Tests: - More time to reflect: You can plan and structure your solution without the time constraints of a live interview. - Real-world work simulation: Provides the opportunity to showcase how you’d solve problems in a real-world setting, using all available resources. - In-depth solutions: Allows for more thoughtful, polished code that can demonstrate your best practices and attention to detail. Both approaches have their place — live coding highlights a candidate's problem-solving under pressure, while take-home tests allow you to showcase your skillset thoroughly without the added pressure of extra eyeballs. What’s your preference? Let me know!👇 #TechInterviews #LiveCoding #TakeHomeTests #CareerDevelopment #Hiring #TechCareers #JobSearch
Take home. Live challenges usually involves a bit of stage fright. Although my last interview had both.
In the real world, I never had to code 'under pressure' (under 30 minutes) and never on a white board. Sure there were times I was fixing an emergency bug and the pressure was intense but even then I still had ample time to test every line of code and polish it up over night before submitting it for review. I've seen good candidates fail white-board coding questions. I don't care if someone can implement sort algorithms or graph algorithms from memory. I do care that they know what data structures are appropriate for what problems I think in person interviews are great for system design questions and for asking things like what classes would you have, what methods would each class have, and how would you address redundancy, scale, etc.... However, the implementation of the classes, methods, and web services usually happens "offline" and a take home assignment does reflect that type of work very well. One thing I've tried to gauge technical ability in-person is to hand someone a simple buggy function and ask them to fix it. This is what most of us spend our time doing anyway and I'm very curious how people approach such problems.
I think a take home test is better as it would give them more time to think through the problem and give the best solution which reflects a typical work day Live Coding while can have its advantages by checking how the candidate codes, can be a bit too disqualifying. They’ll be have the pressure of having eyes on their work while working, analyzing the problem and coming up with a solution in a limited time frame all at the same time. Also I don’t believe live coding reflects the high pressure situation at work 100%. Reason being is by the time we encounter critical things at the job, we’re already use to the code base and it’s easier to think of a solution, we only have to really worry about the timeframe
Totally agree! Live coding is such a great way to see how someone thinks on their feet and handles challenges under time pressure. It really showcases a candidate’s ability to adapt and work efficiently, especially when deadlines are tight.
I asked ChatGPT the same question and to give me the answer as a “linked in style” post and gave a very similar answer to this post….
Frontend Team Lead at Kaltura
1moI think that live coding is much better and can give a lot more information on the thought process of the candidate. - You get to see how they build something, how they plan it and how they think. - you can talk to the candidates, see how they reply, where they ask questions, where they get stuck and where they know their s**t. - You can be sure there's no copy paste (if there is, you can definitely see it) - The interviewer can help where he can - if it's something that's less important for the process, or the candidate got stuck and we can move on to a next stage of the development (In a real-world scenario, when someone's stuck - he can ask for help) I was interviewing like this - a simple task, with a few interesting points that I was looking to see how the candidates would solve. We allowed google and searching, so nobody needs to memorize everything. Overall, for my next job, I'd rather have these kinds of interviews than a take home assignment - I can also get to know the team mate that's interviewing me (and getting to know the team in advance is important), I can be done with it in a short time, instead of toiling for several days only for a chance to go on