I don't believe someone who can't code can explain someone else's code in a convincing way.
* It's way too easy to set a project that takes too long. I was given one the other day that would have taken about two to three full days. That simply doesn't happen if you do the test sitting in front of them - the time spent (and potentially wasted) is always capped because the test setter doesn't want to waste too much of their own time.
* Take home projects inevitably have issues ("bugs", if you will). You can't just "resolve" those problems if the person who set it isn't sitting in front of you.
* Take home projects take employer skin out of the game. It's way too easy to give out twenty tests and ignore ten of them. I was actually half way through a homework test the other day when I was told that surprise they had an open offer and the candidate had just taken the job. I doubt they'd have wasted their own time testing me IRL knowing what they knew.
From the employer's perspective:
* In the last case I also realized after googling that the answers were online and I could just have copied someone else's.
* You lose a valuable source of feedback which allows you to iteratively improve the test if you're not watching the candidate while they do the test. I suspect this is partly why the take home tests I've been given are generally of a lower quality than the in person.
* It's valuable to talk through the solution with the candidate while they do it (describing trade offs they made, pitfalls they're cognizant may crop up, potential downsides to their approach).
> It's way too easy to set a project that takes too long.
> Take home projects inevitably have issues ("bugs", if you will). You can't just "resolve" those problems if the person who set it isn't sitting in front of you.
> Take home projects take employer skin out of the game. It's way too easy to give out twenty tests and ignore ten of them
This gives the employer skin in the game: they're not going to keep their developers off their work for dozens of candidates who are probably not going to make it; they only bring them out to assess a very likely hire.
I guess some employers use these coding assignments badly. You're totally right to avoid those.
> I could just have copied someone else's.
> You lose a valuable source of feedback which allows you to iteratively improve the test if you're not watching the candidate while they do the test.
> It's valuable to talk through the solution with the candidate while they do it