Objectively Measuring Code Quality

objectively measuring code quality

“All of the software engineering candidates seem equally qualified. Which one should we hire?”

For technical recruiters like you, it’s very frustrating to hear these words from your engineering department. After all, you’ve worked hard to fill the funnel with highly qualified candidates, host interviews, coordinate technical assessments, and schedule on-site visits. Surely there’s enough data to make an informed decision — right?

If indecision and gut reaction is plaguing your hiring process, perhaps it’s time to revisit your company’s technical assessment methodology.

The Problems with “Traditional” Coding Assessments

Let’s start by reviewing some common assessment-related challenges that many tech companies struggle with. Do any of these sound familiar?

  1. Too Generic to Be Useful – Your company has very specific requirements when it comes to recruiting technical talent. Unfortunately, most off-the-shelf coding templates fail to assess a developer’s understanding and proficiency with their daily responsibilities. This forces your company to rely on tests that can only measure generic topics, such as algorithms and data structure knowledge, and this typically results in many candidates passing the initial technical screen but failing the onsite interview.
  2. Subjective by Nature – You can’t fit a coding assessment into the confines of a multiple choice test. Each assessment must be manually administered and scored, most likely, by someone with in-depth technical knowledge. To complicate matters, reviewing hundreds of lines of code isn’t exactly a straightforward exercise, and the logic behind the way the code was written is also important. It’s human nature to see situations subjectively and this could foster more internal indecision and debate.
  3. Internal Bottlenecks – There’s no question that technical assessments can create bottlenecks at your company. Manually scheduling, preparing, administering, and evaluating assessments often requires cross-departmental coordination. All of this consumes time, which slows down the recruiting process. Slow recruiting causes developers to lose interest, and that’s not ideal in today’s competitive market.
  4. Plagiarism – With distributed workforces, many assessments are administered virtually. How can you confirm that candidates are actually submitting their own work and not something that has been plagiarized? Without the right tools, you may unknowingly give the upper hand to candidates who cheat.

Cultivating a More Objective Assessment Process

If any of the aforementioned problems sound all too familiar, then our CodeSignal Recruiter platform might be a useful resource. We built CodeSignal Recruiter specifically for the needs of technical recruiters like you, delivering the following solutions:

Language-Specific Assessments: Our IDE supports 40+ programming languages and offers a library of curated tasks, making it easier to build assessments that actually help you measure competency.

Custom-Calibrated Solutions: Our testing experts will work with you to create two custom assessments at no extra charge.  These assessments can align with your company’s mission or the daily responsibilities of the position.  They are calibrated with your onsite interview questions and are far less subject to any attempts of plagiarism.

Consistent & Collaborative Interface: As candidates submit their work, assessment scores become instantly available within the CodeSignal interface. For developers who progress further in the pipeline, the interview coding environment delivers additional real-time insights into skills and abilities.

ATS Integration: Already using an ATS? CodeSignal Recruiter integrates with several of the most popular applicant tracking systems.

Native Plagiarism Checking: CodeSignal also tests each code submission for plagiarism issues, helping you to feel more confident about the integrity of your assessment data.

Sign up for a quick demo to learn how CodeSignal is helping recruiters create more objective technical assessments.

Related Posts

Copyright © 2018 BrainFights Inc. All rights reserved.​