Contracting straight out of uni. Is it doable? v2

[malvolio]

Weirdly you'll find technical tests are high treason to some "experts" on this forum.

If you have a verifiable CV that shows you have delivered multiple times in the real world, possibly with renewal to keep you on site, and a history of technical knowledge that has been used in the real world, doing a free and wholly artificial exam to test your technical knowledge of arcane bits of languages in isolation doesn't prove all that much. For one thing you would probably pass, for another if in the real world you don't know the answer you would be more than capable of finding it out and applying it correctly. Being able to solve a technical test means absolutely sod all other than that you have learned the manuals and the exam setter thinks he's better than you.

Hence the disdain for technical tests. Clients can't afford to take the risks of a theoretical expert when they can hire a real one. Those that think they can you probably don't want to work for anyway.

[TheGreenBastard]

If you have a verifiable CV that shows you have delivered multiple times in the real world, possibly with renewal to keep you on site, and a history of technical knowledge that has been used in the real world, doing a free and wholly artificial exam to test your technical knowledge of arcane bits of languages in isolation doesn't prove all that much. For one thing you would probably pass, for another if in the real world you don't know the answer you would be more than capable of finding it out and applying it correctly. Being able to solve a technical test means absolutely sod all other than that you have learned the manuals and the exam setter thinks he's better than you.

Hence the disdain for technical tests. Clients can't afford to take the risks of a theoretical expert when they can hire a real one. Those that think they can you probably don't want to work for anyway.

There's no perfect balance, there's chancers with the greatest C.V. on earth (worked with such "experts") and arrogant interviewers. A reasonable in person tech test when 600pd is on offer is hardly unfair.

[SuperZ]

There's no perfect balance, there's chancers with the greatest C.V. on earth (worked with such "experts") and arrogant interviewers. A reasonable in person tech test when 600pd is on offer is hardly unfair.

Don't think £ has got much to do with it and nothing to do with fairness . Many of us have many years of proven experience. I know I find it a bit insulting when asked to sit in a room by myself for however long doing some daft test that proves very little. Those that don't tell you before hand are worse.

At the end of the day contractors can be let go swiftly. Personally I'd rather interviewers focus on the all round picture, ask about what I've done, check with previous people I've worked with, and then "try me out" than give me a daft written test. I'm confident the all round package I can offer will be good or they can let me know with zero notice if they want .
How many people join a new surgery and ask their new doctor or dentist questions on how they might do something? Or the plumber. "Hi mate, before I give you this job can you tell me how you would go about diagnosing......."

I see tests as being created by jobsworths or the willy waving types and I've seen evidence of this at a few client co's.
At a few client sites I've actually steered interviewers away from the "dump in a room for 20 minutes" kind of tests they were going to give to their contractor candidates.
The good long term contractors among us could probably retire today if they wanted to - in that situation you're more likely to think "I can't be arsed" when it comes to tests and the like. BUt would like talk over what needs to be done (what the company is looking for, what they are trying to achieve) and then what we can offer, is a better approach all round IMO.

[nomadd]

A reasonable in person tech test when 600pd is on offer is hardly unfair.

It's not a question of "fairness". It's a question of "professionalism".

Once you become an Expert, you'll understand.

(Oh, and £600/day is nothing to write home about. )

[TheGreenBastard]

Don't think £ has got much to do with it and nothing to do with fairness . Many of us have many years of proven experience. I know I find it a bit insulting when asked to sit in a room by myself for however long doing some daft test that proves very little. Those that don't tell you before hand are worse.

At the end of the day contractors can be let go swiftly. Personally I'd rather interviewers focus on the all round picture, ask about what I've done, check with previous people I've worked with, and then "try me out" than give me a daft written test. I'm confident the all round package I can offer will be good or they can let me know with zero notice if they want .
How many people join a new surgery and ask their new doctor or dentist questions on how they might do something? Or the plumber. "Hi mate, before I give you this job can you tell me how you would go about diagnosing......."

I see tests as being created by jobsworths or the willy waving types and I've seen evidence of this at a few client co's.
At a few client sites I've actually steered interviewers away from the "dump in a room for 20 minutes" kind of tests they were going to give to their contractor candidates.
The good long term contractors among us could probably retire today if they wanted to - in that situation you're more likely to think "I can't be arsed" when it comes to tests and the like. BUt would like talk over what needs to be done (what the company is looking for, what they are trying to achieve) and then what we can offer, is a better approach all round IMO.

Surgeons and dentists go through significant processes to get where they are - even then some are like Sideshow Bob.

Plumbers are notorious for chancers...

A simple: how how to iterate this array, implement a simple recursive function have filtered out a lot of crap from my experience. There are limits I agree, doing a day's work as a test is unacceptable, should literally be 10 mins.

Giving contractors with A-list C.Vs. the benefit of doubt can mean you miss out real talent too.

[nomadd]

A simple: how how to iterate this array, implement a simple recursive function have filtered out a lot of crap from my experience.

So, two questions you could have simply asked the candidate at the very start of the interview and got reasonable answers to in about 10 seconds each.

The alternative, of burning away everyone's time and money on a "tech. test", would have been a pointlessly stupid.

[TheGreenBastard]

It's not a question of "fairness". It's a question of "professionalism".

Once you become an Expert, you'll understand.

(Oh, and £600/day is nothing to write home about. )

Sadly I'm just a pleb your holyness. Professionalism by not being a chancer contractor for instance? Software engineering is awash with em.

So, two questions you could have simply asked the candidate at the very start of the interview and got reasonable answers to in about 10 seconds each.

The alternative, of burning away everyone's time and money on a "tech. test", would have been a pointlessly stupid.

Always discuss these concepts on the phone, some slip through the net and still fail this minor "challenge" on the day (in the language of choice).

[Lavarella]

Weirdly you'll find technical tests are high treason to some "experts" on this forum.

Well you were right! Speak of the devil...

Feel free to get offended and insulted by technical interviews/test and to waive jobs because of this. The one guy who, ceteris paribus, won't get offended by them and will do well enough in them will get the job.
Show me, don't tell me.

I do agree that they shouldn't be too technical and miopic and that "I don't know straight away, but I will do xyz and do some research in abc" can be a possible answer. Even better, one shouldn't be let alone in a room dealing with it, but it should be a brief but to-the-point part of the face to face interview.

And while it's true that a contractor can be let go of more or less easily, the hire and fire is still a waste of time and there's no reason why not to "get it right first time". Plus I'm yet to see, in this increasingly politically correct world, somebody willing to talk tulip about somebody with a somewhat perfect stranger.
Or somebody willing to give contact details of a person that MIGHT say something not completely positive about them.

My second to last ClientCo had to recruit some 11 data/business analysts across the country and they advertised a clear need of Excel skills, but they refused my proposal for a short technical interview. I reckon about two of them cut the mustard. The other ones didn't even have a decent understanding of what a vlookup was and sold themselves as experienced data analysts on Excel.

Sure.

[SussexSeagull]

Absolutely no problem with technical questions in an interview. To be honest I sort of expect it.

I don't really have a problem with short technical tests but I have done some that take about four hours. If you are in contract at the time that really isn't on. Also anything that can be re-used in the real world is a no.

[nomadd]

Sadly I'm just a pleb your holyness.

Thanks. That's all I needed to know.

(It's spelt "holiness", btw. )