I&#x27;m not sure I&#x27;d go for that TBH. I&#x27;ve seen candidates who are good on paper (one former university lecturer springs to mind) who was incredibly difficult to understand and his experience was irrelevant.<p>We typically need to hire quickly, and having to wait 2 weeks - and coach someone on all the different components, create accounts for them, etc. - is not &quot;free&quot; for us.<p>If you&#x27;re that good you should blaze through the technical questions in half an hour, and give us all confidence we&#x27;re not wasting each others&#x27; time.<p>Then again you&#x27;re a freelancer to so it&#x27;s a bit different to being hired as a contractor&#x2F;permie. But either way, we want the hiring gap filled, not as something we have to revisit after 2 weeks before we decide whether we have to go back out to market.<p>Put it this way. You come in for an interview, refuse the tech questions and we&#x27;re left thinking &quot;this guy looks good on paper, so why doesn&#x27;t he want to explain what a design pattern is?&quot;. Straight after you a guy comes in who answers the technical questions OK. Who do you think we&#x27;d hire?