I've been wondering about the current trend in technical assessments for web developers, especially for junior roles. It seems like nearly every mid-size company or startup is requiring candidates to complete extensive take-home projects. Instead of simple tasks or algorithms, they expect a full-fledged Next.js/React application complete with state management, a connected database, user authentication, API routes, and perfect responsive styles—along with hosting it on Vercel and submitting a GitHub repo. These projects can take 15 to 20 hours or more to complete, and after all that effort, many candidates face automated rejections with no feedback. It raises the question: why must we create fully functional mini SaaS products just to prove our skills? How do others manage this? Do you keep templates ready to modify, or is there any hope for a standardized way to demonstrate our capabilities without investing so much unpaid time?
4 Answers
I usually keep a basic template available that has the authentication and layout set up. This makes it easy to adapt for different assignments without starting from nothing each time. This practice helps save me tons of time!
Honestly, if a company is asking for that much time on a take-home project, it's a major red flag. They might already have someone lined up, or worse, they're just looking for free ideas from desperate candidates. Don't waste your time unless absolutely necessary.
You're spot on. It’s frustrating knowing that companies might use these projects to filter out candidates who are desperate for work. As juniors, we seem to be the easiest targets for this behavior.
A lot of industry insiders advise against take-home projects altogether. I personally won't do them unless it's clearly under two hours of work or has a timer. After several experiences with lengthy projects and getting zero feedback, I've set a hard limit for my own sanity. Just say no to overly complicated tasks!
That’s such a good rule! The fact that you went through four long projects without even a response sounds soul-crushing. I’m definitely adopting that two-hour limit to protect my mental health!
At my company, we provide a scaffold for take-home projects. Candidates set up routes and UI on top of a pre-configured setup. It’s a two-hour limit, focused on coding skills rather than free labor. I think this way is much more respectful and practical.
That sounds fair! I wish companies would adopt that kind of approach. Giving candidates a scaffold to work from allows them to demonstrate their knowledge without the expectation to build something from scratch.
Why not conduct these assessments in a live setting at the office? I feel a live coding exercise could be sufficient and less burdensome for candidates.
That's such a smart idea! I can’t believe I haven’t done that. It would definitely help avoid the repetitive setup. I’m going to work on a starter template this weekend!