You aren't asking them to invest $100k/yr. You're asking them to bring you in to an on-site interview. A few hours of their time for a few hours of your own is much more equitable.
The point is that they pay you the $100k for the time you give them as an employee. They don't pay you a cent for the interview project, so you shouldn't give them a single second in return.
They don't pay you for the interview, but that usually costs the company several man-hours worth of work just for the time an applicant is on-site. Should applicants be reimbursing companies for failed interviews?
Maybe. I've always thought it would be interesting to make applicants pay an application fee. This would cut down on people "spraying and praying" with their application, and would lessen the workload for companies. It would also justify spending more time and effort in reading applications, since the company isn't just wasting resources reading bad applications.
Even under the current system, at least the waste is symmetric. I give up a few hours of my time, and the company gives up a few hours of its time. There's equity. The mutual work that the company and applicant do offset each other.
A take-home test model skews that balance in favor of the company. An applicant can spend 10 or more hours working the project. The company can run it through an automated testing suite and have a recruiter spend five minutes looking it over. The system is designed to waste more of the applicant's time and less of the company's.
> Even under the current system, at least the waste is symmetric.
But it's never symmetric. Someone in HR spent time setting up the job posting and managing the process. Someone in management took the time to respond to HR and review your resum, then approve the interview. At least one person at a time is in the interview with you. Then the entire team will spend time afterward breaking it down.
A single hour spent by a bad candidate wastes at least 3 man-hours of work by the company, and most likely more.
> A single hour spent by a bad candidate wastes at least 3 man-hours of work by the company, and most likely more.
So? Companies need employees. They have to do what it takes to get them. If it weren't worth it, they wouldn't do it.
It makes sense to me that more time in aggregate is spent by the company than the candidate, because the company has dedicated recruiting/HR/coordination people that handle the process. I, as an already full-time employed developer, don't have as much time to burn with interviewing.
That interview costs me at least $500 cash -- my take home pay for the day of vacation I would have to give up. I value my vacation days at rather more than $500 actually, because I have so few of them.
It's not unreasonable for the company to ask for a few hours of the person they actually end up hiring. It's wasting the time of the dozens of other people that will never get reasonable consideration that's objectionable.
Wasting candidate time should never be used for screening. At most, steps that take a significant amount of time or effort should be reserved solely for determining the order in which the acceptable candidates receive offers, and the amounts of those offers.
And if you're worth $100k/year and they're asking for a day of your time, it's not unreasonable for you to ask for $500 from them for turning up. How many employers do you know who offer that to all of their interview candidates?
