As a candidate, possibly the most useful interview I ever had (in terms of finding out whether or not I'd be at home in the job) was when an employer paid me to work with them for 2 days - but that's a highly unusual approach, and probably only feasible if the candidate is already a strong contender for the role.

that sounds really cool. on the other side, on hiring teams we've agonized about requesting that much time from someone. you can possibly introduce a bias to people lucky/privileged enough to have two days they can get

and i bet sean will discuss that much more eloquently

I'd be shocked if anyone could effectively come up to speed enough in two days for that to be a feasible way to evaluate candidates.

(and, yes, it does presuppose a lot of things about the candidates!)

Was it on-site and local @rhinocratic

I remember when I joined Macromedia, they didn't have a desk for me for about a week, nor a computer 🙂 So I was paid to sit in various corners and read and think for a week 🙂

It was (for me), but other candidates travelled considerable distances for other roles. I certainly don't think I came up to speed (especially since the coding was in a language unfamiliar to me), but it did convey a good feel for the nature of the work. It's probably significant that it was a greenfield project.

Definitely an interesting approach -- and at least they were actually paying the candidate to work.

I confess to finding it a bit dispiriting that people are so ready to discount senior devs' experience when (based upon a brief grilling) their thought patterns don't immediately appear to conform to the interviewer's expectations. Surely, seniors have built their careers upon being flexible and adaptable, and should not be judged incapable of change or learning? (Groucho - "These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."). I've found this attitude noticeably more common over the last 10 years, so I'm wondering if it's a coded way of saying "You're kind of old, aren't you?".