Organizations use third-party coding platforms for testing candidates as part of recruitment process. Examples of such platforms include: HackerRank, Leetcode, Codility, Qualified, among others. In many respects, use of such platforms in recruitment practice is counterproductive for several reasons, as stated below.
- The problem statement is usually unclear and not defined in similar terms that would be practical for a business case
- Often the problem is defined in mathematical terms which is likely to confuse the candidate
- The testing environment is often buggy
- Tests are very localized and mundane
- Tests can drive bad practices
- Tests can reflect problems that candidate will never have to solve in practice
- Tests have incorrect test cases
- Tests are erratic
- Tests don't lend themselves very well to practical business use cases
- Tests ignore disabilities, social adjustments, and are counter to diversity, inclusion, and equity
- Tests have tedious edge cases and ambiguous logic
- Tests develop a sense of social distrust especially with experienced candidates
- Tests have questions that are not tailored to skills required for the job
- Candidates can pass even if they lack the necessary skills for the job
- Candidates who have a lot of practice on the platform can game the system
- Harder to code in an unfamiliar environment
- Tests can filter out good candidates leaving mediocre and average candidates
- Tests tend to be based on algorithmic skill rather than the ability to code
- Tests require time which can be defined as chargeable time especially if it requires developing a model
- Tests are often bookish in nature and rarely a reflection on a candidate's experience
- Tests can reset haphazardly in middle of a session
- Tests tend to be timed meaning they don't provide sufficient flexibility to candidates to fit into their busy schedules
- Tests can be done using Generative AI
