I'm a software developer. I applied to a company and passed the initial screening. After that, I passed a 3-hour technical test. I now am asked to write another technical test that would take 3 days.
Just before setting up this 3-day test-- after my 3-hr test, the company recruiter mentioned and scheduled an in-person interview. She checked the times with me, with the 3 others to participate in the interview, set the time up and sent me the invitation which I accepted.
After that, I received an email saying that she made a mistake, I have to do a 3-day test before the in-person.
I'm thinking of asking for doing the coding phase during the in-person interview. Phrasing something like "Would it be an option to move the coding phase to in-person interview."
How would this look?
I also now have mixed feelings about the company. They aren't sure about me. 3 days' time is too much to burn especially these days. And yet, I don't want to miss out on the opportunity.
The recruiter got back saying that they are changing the order-- the in-person next and the coding test after that.
During the conversation, I asked, rather clarified myself whether "3-days" was something that would require 3 straight days with my uninterrupted attention or just to give me time. Turns out to be the second.
The conversation went well. All resolved nicely.
( 6 months ago )
You're well within your rights to decide that three days is too much time to spend on this and either ask for it to be changed, of course doing so may severely limit your chances of getting the job because they are well within their rights to decide that a candidate who doesn't want to follow their hiring process isn't someone they want to hire.
For what it's worth this seeming trend towards three day long tests (and similar) is a bit crap IMO, I understand why employers do it but I think in the long run it's counter-productive.