I would complete the assignment and submit merged watermarked file for the review. If they want to use it, they can hire me and backpay for the work.
In defense of the employer - a lot of younger applicants are, to put it mildly, not exquisite. I’m in this business for 20+ years and have a partial say in hiring. Skill tests as a part of selection process are becoming more common because people literally outsource their portfolio pieces and often are not very proficient in design software.
You say the job description doesn't actually tell you the task.... Why not apply and ask for more details about the task?
Then you can just make a more informed decision
Keep hearing 'well, that's the way its done nowadays'.
No. It's not. It only becomes normalized when the design community enables it.
These 'tests' only confirm how a potential boss/employer will act when and if you are hired. Unsure. Incapable of understanding good design from bad design.
Pass.
Only that you need to be one of the top 8 candidates who scores over 60% before they’ll even interview you. I’ve heard of people having to do an assignment and not get the job but the company still uses what they made. Isn’t it kind of like getting ‘free’ work?
Then just apply anyway and when you find out more details you can make a more informed decision
I mean they may say no to you anyway and not give you the task in the first place, what harm is applying going to do?
Yea like the other guy said. Just apply see where it goes. Who cares if they use your work. Just keep applying and move on. dont get stuck up on these what if scenarios either before or after. Just do it and dont worry about it. Just worry about applying to other places until something sticks. and you get a job
It is not a red flag. This is standard proceedure for a lot of job applications. Ive done it a dozen times over. They are annoying, but more often than not it doesnt feel like you are doing free work. It seems more like a way to see if you both talk the talk and walk the walk
When exactly is the test to be implemented? It's a red flag for sure if done prior to any formal interview (in-person or video, phone screeners don't count).
This is just logical and respectful of applicants' time, as you can eliminate far more people, far more quickly, via interviews. Why have someone do even 1-2 hours of work (let alone more, as is often the case with tests) when most of them you could eliminate within a 20 minute interview?
Really the test should be the absolute last step, if used at all. Basically given to people all but hired, the finalists, so 1-3 people max. (There's no reason they shouldn't be able to get it down to that after the interview phase.)
However, it's also an issue if a test involves too much time, and isn't controlled. Not only should a test be limited to 1-2 hours max (length of a long interview), but needs to have a fixed start and end date so they can properly assess what you did, and be able to compare it to other applicants.
That said, it's too-common for employers to poorly implement tests, typically due to their own incompetence. They aren't designers and don't know how to evaluate and interview design candidates, or simply aren't very good/experienced with hiring. Often I think people use bad tests simply because they were told or googled it or had it done once to them so just think that's what you're supposed to do.
You're *actually* supposed to only interview people who you think have good-enough portfolios (and experience if relevant) in the first place, use the interview to sufficiently delve into their work and how they think, what they actually did and know, and get a read on who they are as a person, if they'd be a good fit on the team. And only advance past that if they still do really well. If you don't like them enough after the interview... reject them.
It says that first to submit your CV and portfolio, then do they assignement and only if you are in the top 8 candidates then they will interview you. That's why I'm a bit dubious. It seems like a lot of hoops to jump through for a job interview.
Yeah on one hand this kind of thing is too-common or common-enough, but still not appropriate and indefensible.
No reason to give a test prior to interviews, and only give a test (if at all) to the final few who are still the top candidates after the interview.
In this case they could have dozens or hundreds of people doing that assignment, just to pick 8 for an interview. It's incredibly disrespectful and a terrible waste of applicants' time. It also shows they do not know how to evaluate portfolios. It's incompetence across the board.
And remember that this is them at their best. They will not be better to actually work for if you got the job.
I decided not to apply since there are other jobs I have applied for that have an easier selection process. I don't want to waste my time creating something for a company that might not even pick me and maybe it sounds a pretentious of me but if I'm not even being compensated for wasted time I'm out. That's time I could be spending on applying for other jobs or going to job interviews.
I would complete the assignment and submit merged watermarked file for the review. If they want to use it, they can hire me and backpay for the work. In defense of the employer - a lot of younger applicants are, to put it mildly, not exquisite. I’m in this business for 20+ years and have a partial say in hiring. Skill tests as a part of selection process are becoming more common because people literally outsource their portfolio pieces and often are not very proficient in design software.
You say the job description doesn't actually tell you the task.... Why not apply and ask for more details about the task? Then you can just make a more informed decision
Keep hearing 'well, that's the way its done nowadays'. No. It's not. It only becomes normalized when the design community enables it. These 'tests' only confirm how a potential boss/employer will act when and if you are hired. Unsure. Incapable of understanding good design from bad design. Pass.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a red flag, they might just want to see your skills? Did they give any other details?
Only that you need to be one of the top 8 candidates who scores over 60% before they’ll even interview you. I’ve heard of people having to do an assignment and not get the job but the company still uses what they made. Isn’t it kind of like getting ‘free’ work?
It depends on what the ask is. Whats the assignment you'd have to do
It doesn’t say in the job description
Then just apply anyway and when you find out more details you can make a more informed decision I mean they may say no to you anyway and not give you the task in the first place, what harm is applying going to do?
Yea like the other guy said. Just apply see where it goes. Who cares if they use your work. Just keep applying and move on. dont get stuck up on these what if scenarios either before or after. Just do it and dont worry about it. Just worry about applying to other places until something sticks. and you get a job
Red flag.
It is not a red flag. This is standard proceedure for a lot of job applications. Ive done it a dozen times over. They are annoying, but more often than not it doesnt feel like you are doing free work. It seems more like a way to see if you both talk the talk and walk the walk
I know why you've done them a dozen times over.
Because I've applied to thousands of jobs in my career so far... It's really not that deep
When exactly is the test to be implemented? It's a red flag for sure if done prior to any formal interview (in-person or video, phone screeners don't count). This is just logical and respectful of applicants' time, as you can eliminate far more people, far more quickly, via interviews. Why have someone do even 1-2 hours of work (let alone more, as is often the case with tests) when most of them you could eliminate within a 20 minute interview? Really the test should be the absolute last step, if used at all. Basically given to people all but hired, the finalists, so 1-3 people max. (There's no reason they shouldn't be able to get it down to that after the interview phase.) However, it's also an issue if a test involves too much time, and isn't controlled. Not only should a test be limited to 1-2 hours max (length of a long interview), but needs to have a fixed start and end date so they can properly assess what you did, and be able to compare it to other applicants. That said, it's too-common for employers to poorly implement tests, typically due to their own incompetence. They aren't designers and don't know how to evaluate and interview design candidates, or simply aren't very good/experienced with hiring. Often I think people use bad tests simply because they were told or googled it or had it done once to them so just think that's what you're supposed to do. You're *actually* supposed to only interview people who you think have good-enough portfolios (and experience if relevant) in the first place, use the interview to sufficiently delve into their work and how they think, what they actually did and know, and get a read on who they are as a person, if they'd be a good fit on the team. And only advance past that if they still do really well. If you don't like them enough after the interview... reject them.
It says that first to submit your CV and portfolio, then do they assignement and only if you are in the top 8 candidates then they will interview you. That's why I'm a bit dubious. It seems like a lot of hoops to jump through for a job interview.
Yeah on one hand this kind of thing is too-common or common-enough, but still not appropriate and indefensible. No reason to give a test prior to interviews, and only give a test (if at all) to the final few who are still the top candidates after the interview. In this case they could have dozens or hundreds of people doing that assignment, just to pick 8 for an interview. It's incredibly disrespectful and a terrible waste of applicants' time. It also shows they do not know how to evaluate portfolios. It's incompetence across the board. And remember that this is them at their best. They will not be better to actually work for if you got the job.
I decided not to apply since there are other jobs I have applied for that have an easier selection process. I don't want to waste my time creating something for a company that might not even pick me and maybe it sounds a pretentious of me but if I'm not even being compensated for wasted time I'm out. That's time I could be spending on applying for other jobs or going to job interviews.
Exactly, that's a good perspective to have.
I did quite a few of them. Usually, it was after the first round of interview, they would set an other date to make you do a test.