I think a better option is to have a system in place where companies hire them for a month or so then after that period you choose whoever made a better impact. And before you say it will be costly, most companies can afford it, especially if it will lead to a better outcome. That way they get tested on the actual systems and not just some useless questions from the internet.
Sure, that's costly for employers, but it's also costly for the candidates.
If you're planning to have N candidates do this when you only have 1 position, you're disrupting the others' lifes so much. It's like one of those chef competition shows. You better pay these people at least 6 months salary to show up for this.
Plus, do you really have the supervisory system in place to have N new hires and evaluate their impact after 1 month. Do you have the work for them to do? Or are they all going to independently work on the same project?
I ask a useless question in interviews, but asking every candidate the same question lets me calibrate the candidates as well as improve how I present the question so we can get to the problem solving and programming skills I want to see. Some questions are worse than others, and I hope mine is less worse; I've had several people tell me they enjoyed working on my question, although I also had a candidate refuse to work on it and ask for another question (which I didn't have, and I was the last interview of the day, so I returned the balance of his time and walked him out)
As someone with a job I'm not giving up my job security to take a job that might go away after 1 month. Doesn't matter how much more it pays - I need income every month to pay rent!
That’s a fair point, maybe the proposed system can be adjusted for a 2hours a day then. The point is to test that person on the systems rather than just QA style.
