Revamping Tech Tests: A New Approach to Assessing Technical Skills

Imagine finding your ideal game company with a job opening that perfectly matches your skills and experience. After preparing your application, you have an introductory call where you discuss your profile and learn more about the company. However, you soon discover that the next step in the hiring process involves a timed technical test. This scenario is all too familiar for engineers in the game industry, who often have to endure lengthy technical tests as part of the recruitment process. In my opinion, tests are an ineffective way to conduct tech recruitment, providing an unclear and biased picture of the candidate while placing a burden on both the applicant and the hiring team. This article explores why technical tests are flawed and proposes a more inclusive and effective approach to assessing candidates. Technical tests come in various forms, such as solving a problem using specific languages and tools or developing a small game based on a design specification. Regardless of the format, the outcome is often a piece of code with little context, leading to misunderstandings and confusion. Writing code is not the primary skill you should expect from an engineer; rather, it's the culmination of a series of decisions and considerations. Questions like why a certain pattern was chosen, whether alternative solutions were considered, and how the project would be further developed are left unanswered. If the goal is to understand how a candidate solves problems, why not do it together in person or on a call? From the candidate's perspective, it's challenging to gauge the interviewer's expectations and preferences, and they may hesitate to ask questions due to time constraints. Companies relying on technical tests focus on the wrong aspects, prioritizing coding skills over essential traits like effective communication, problem-solving, and adaptability. Technical tests are often seen as a convenient way to filter out candidates, but they can be time-consuming and unfair. In reality, evaluating tech tests can be a significant burden on engineering teams, leading to delayed project delivery or rushed, inadequate assessments. Candidates, on the other hand, may spend weeks working on unpaid tests, which can be a substantial burden, especially for those with other commitments. A common misconception is that if a candidate is not willing to dedicate time to a test, they're not interested in the position. However, this ignores the fact that people have different amounts of free time and obligations, resulting in biased outcomes. To address these issues, I propose a more effective approach: collaborating with the candidate in a shared development environment to explore a problem together. This involves presenting a scenario, allowing the candidate to analyze requirements and ask questions, and then developing a solution. This method provides valuable insights into the candidate's problem-solving skills, communication, and approach to challenges. It's essential to provide a prepared environment, clarify time allocations, and offer accessibility arrangements to ensure a fair and inclusive experience. Some studios have already adopted this approach, and the results are promising. As hiring managers, it's our responsibility to make the recruitment process as fair and inclusive as possible, especially during times of uncertainty and change in the industry.