We do use difficult questions later in the process. I don't believe it's reasonable to put a difficult question right in the job application before the applicant even knows if we're going to respond. That's why that question is intentionally easy. As another reply said, it's basically like a captcha.

What is the benefit of the first stage of the process? If you do well at the first stage, and poorly at the second stage, can you be hired?

The first stage is just a quick question we ask people to answer along with their initial application. The second stage is what we use as an actual interview process (described in more detail in other replies here). The purpose of the first stage is just to filter out the large percentage of applicants who are unqualified and just spamming out résumés. Passing that alone is of course not enough for someone to be hired.

Well, again, what is the benefit of having a multi-stage process? Is it helping the applicants? Is it helping you? Start with a harder question, and you're doing them a favor at the same time you do one for yourself.

Why would you need one filter for "qualifications > 1" and a second one for "qualifications > 4" when you could just apply "qualifications > 4"?

I couldn't disagree more with you, and I wonder if you've ever managed a hiring process.

If you put a hard programming question as a requirement just to APPLY for a job, I don't think you would get any good candidates at all. It's just not worth the time. When you're applying for a job you have no idea if the company is going to be interested at all, and that's fine, because there are just so many variables involved.

They could have just found someone and not yet taken the ad down. They could be about to receive an application from someone even better than you. They (or their system) might have some inherent bias against you, maybe even accidentally (degree > bootcamp, US college vs Canadian college, etc.).

When you're applying for a job it's just not feasible to go around doing HARD programming questions every time, because for so many reasons out of your control the company might just ignore you. And that's fine, that's for them to decide. But it means doing what you're saying would be a terrible, terrible idea, and actually most likely get the worst candidates who don't have any other options but can find a solution to your problem online.

Which part of your comment doesn't apply equally to candidates who just passed the fizzbuzz round?

Because you've already initiated a dialogue with and shown interest in those candidates, so they have at least some assurance that they're not just wasting their time.

How is that? All of these things are still problems once the company has said "hey, we received your resume, and now we want you to do something more":

> They could have just found someone and not yet taken the ad down.

> They could be about to receive an application from someone even better than you.

> They (or their system) might have some inherent bias against you

> When you're applying for a job it's just not feasible to go around doing HARD programming questions every time, because for so many reasons out of your control the company might just ignore you.

> you have no idea if the company is going to be interested at all

Most of those responses are going to candidates the company would never even consider hiring, because the initial filter is so worthless.

If only I'd applied some kind of screen to avoid getting sucked into this thread. Better late than never I guess.

Why are people even dating? They could just fill out a questionnaire and get married right away.

That approach is called "arranged marriage"; it is common and has statistically better outcomes than the other way.

"statistically better" hah you're killing me