Take-homes promise a realistic work sample. In practice most of them measure free time and goodwill.
The time-cost asymmetry
A four-hour assignment costs the candidate four hours and the employer perhaps twenty minutes of review. Multiplied across a funnel, that asymmetry is why candidates increasingly decline them outright — and the candidates most able to decline are the ones you most want.
Unreviewed submissions do lasting damage
An assignment that receives no feedback converts an interested candidate into an active detractor, and campuses have long memories. If you cannot commit to reviewing every submission, do not set one.
When they earn their place
Short — under ninety minutes. Specific — a real problem, not a toy. Reviewed — every submission, with a sentence of feedback. Under those three conditions a take-home outperforms a live exercise for roles where the work is genuinely asynchronous.
Key takeaways
- The time-cost asymmetry is why strong candidates decline take-homes first.
- Never set an assignment you will not review; the brand damage outlasts the requisition.
- Under ninety minutes, specific, and reviewed with feedback — otherwise use a live exercise.
Questions
Should take-homes be paid?+
For anything over ninety minutes, yes. Paying signals that you value the candidate's time and sharply reduces drop-off among the strongest applicants.
How do we detect AI-assisted submissions?+
Stop trying to detect and start interrogating. A ten-minute discussion of the submission establishes authorship far more reliably than any detector, and it is a better use of the time.