We've talked about this so many times on HN, and I've weighed in on this so many times. But it's an important enough topic that we should have the discussion again.
You left undefined what you mean by "some sort of basic coding test". I have been screened out of jobs based on questions like "find all matching subtrees in a binary tree", or "find all sub matrices with positive determinants in an NXM matrix" (at the whiteboard, in 45 minutes).
I don't think this is as much about critical thinking as you do. What limited feedback I got (from a recruiter, never the person who did the test) was "analysed the problem and sketched the solution well, but didn't make enough coding progress."
Again, this was 45 minutes at the whiteboard in a day of getting shuttled from room to room for 5 hours of this.
At least you didn't mention "programmers who can't write fizz buzz." I have never heard of anyone getting screened out because of fizz buzz. You may have seen it. But based on my experience, the coding problems are way, way harder than fizz buzz.
Maybe you're doing things differently. If so, that's great, but I don't believe it's he norm at all.
I'm also totally ok with you giving a difficult technical test that will weed out many competent programmers, as long as you don't pretend it isn't.
I'll finish the way I always do - the alleged "shortage" or software developers in Silicon Valley is a product of rational market behavior among educated people who are free to choose a career according to market signals and their own personal interests. Re-taking your second year undergraduate data structures and algorithms exam is about as appetizing as retaking organic chemistry for the rest of your life for a physician, or retaking your partial differential equations exam is for an actuary. If free citizens don't want an employer's job in the numbers the employer thinks they should, even though the employer has decided it pays well, that's the market's answer. I see no need for the government to ask again on the employer's behalf.
A precise definition in the abstract would be difficult. However, examples are still very useful. Typically, there's an initial easier screening followed by a much harder coding test. Rather than discuss them in the abstract, why not provide clear examples of each?
For example, consider the difference between the three statements:
You'd be amazed with how many candidates can't actually program. Like at all.
vs.
You'd be amazed with how many supposedly 'senior' programmers can't pass a very simple programming test. And even those who do can't handle relatively elementary data structures and algorithms once they get to the second round.
vs.
You'd be amazed how many supposedly 'senior' programmers can't code up fizz buzz or sum odd numbers from 1 to 100 in a loop. And even the ones who do can't search a binary of integers to see if it contains a particular value at a whiteboard in 45 minutes.
The last one doesn't define what an easy and hard problem is in the abstract universal case, but it gives me a very good sense of who is and isn't failing these tests. Without that, the claim is relatively meaningless.
Unfortunately, I actually think that many of these claims are deliberately left ambiguous. Many people who are claiming a shortage really don't want to be clear about why.
You left undefined what you mean by "some sort of basic coding test". I have been screened out of jobs based on questions like "find all matching subtrees in a binary tree", or "find all sub matrices with positive determinants in an NXM matrix" (at the whiteboard, in 45 minutes).
I don't think this is as much about critical thinking as you do. What limited feedback I got (from a recruiter, never the person who did the test) was "analysed the problem and sketched the solution well, but didn't make enough coding progress."
Again, this was 45 minutes at the whiteboard in a day of getting shuttled from room to room for 5 hours of this.
At least you didn't mention "programmers who can't write fizz buzz." I have never heard of anyone getting screened out because of fizz buzz. You may have seen it. But based on my experience, the coding problems are way, way harder than fizz buzz.
Maybe you're doing things differently. If so, that's great, but I don't believe it's he norm at all.
I'm also totally ok with you giving a difficult technical test that will weed out many competent programmers, as long as you don't pretend it isn't.
I'll finish the way I always do - the alleged "shortage" or software developers in Silicon Valley is a product of rational market behavior among educated people who are free to choose a career according to market signals and their own personal interests. Re-taking your second year undergraduate data structures and algorithms exam is about as appetizing as retaking organic chemistry for the rest of your life for a physician, or retaking your partial differential equations exam is for an actuary. If free citizens don't want an employer's job in the numbers the employer thinks they should, even though the employer has decided it pays well, that's the market's answer. I see no need for the government to ask again on the employer's behalf.