I&#x27;ve always liked take-home projects for 2 reasons:
1) I get extremely anxious during interviews, so I don&#x27;t perform well in them (to the point of crying sometimes - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.pamelafox.org&#x2F;2013&#x2F;09&#x2F;technical-interviews-make-me-cry.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.pamelafox.org&#x2F;2013&#x2F;09&#x2F;technical-interviews-make-...</a>)
2) I like getting to see what it&#x27;d be like to do the sort of work that the company would be asking me to do for my job - it&#x27;s a good taste to see if the company would be a good fit for me. The best take-homes are the ones that <i>very closely</i> approximate the actual job.<p>However, not everyone likes take-home projects or has the time to do them. So it seems that companies should ideally offer each candidate multiple paths, and develop consistent rubrics to evaluate how each candidate does across paths.<p>I also do like the idea of probation, as it once again seems like it could be both good for the company and good for the employer, to give them both a sense of fit. Jobs are such big decisions, it&#x27;s stressful for both the employer and employee to figure out if it&#x27;s the right path for them.