As the cheating conversation has exploded<\/a>, one more slider is on most technical recruiters\u2019 mixing desk:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, how do you balance looking after candidates with looking after the organization? Candidate experience with hiring integrity? Can you build a technical recruitment process that ticks both boxes? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer is yes, and we\u2019ll share some practical ways to do it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But the opportunity\u2019s bigger than that. Because candidate experience isn\u2019t just a priority to balance. Great CX is actually your best strategic lever to stop cheating in its tracks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s a revolutionary idea, because it means you don\u2019t have to backburner CX to frontburner integrity. And instead, can build an engaging, high-performance recruitment function that takes the cheating issue off the table. <\/p>\n\n\n\n GenAI frog-marching across the world and remote working momentum have both opened new doors for cheating, making hiring integrity a hot-hot-hot topic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Business Insider reports<\/a> that 10% of tech candidates attempt to cheat during hiring, for example. Ouch).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At best, cheating wastes everyone\u2019s time and money. At worst, cheating imperils hiring decision-making. You might think<\/em> you interviewed Kylie, but actually you interviewed Kylie\u2019s friend Anusha. Or Reddit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hopefully when Kylie turns up, she\u2019s relatively capable. Perhaps she felt pressured to cheat because of the intensity of the job market, for example. So maybe she\u2019s not a great culture fit \u2013 but hiring her doesn\u2019t derail the business. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udd16 Related read:<\/strong> Why do candidates really cheat?<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But worst-case scenario, Kylie\u2019s miles off the pace. And her lackluster coding skills escalate into embarrassing, time-consuming, costly issues. And then there\u2019s the whole fire-rehire mountain too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Even more worst-case, the FBI warns of cybercriminals cheating to secure jobs<\/a> that grant exposure to confidential data. Try explaining that one to your employees and customers.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n So how do you stop prospective devs from cheating their way into a job? Let\u2019s start with understanding the scope of the problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer\u2019s complicated, because one person\u2019s cheating is another person\u2019s resourcefulness. But let\u2019s review the most common \u201ccheating\u201d touchpoints:<\/p>\n\n\n\n You probably have an intuitive sense of what cheating on a resume looks like. But unpick that slightly and it\u2019s more nuanced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Attitudes have evolved but for many traditionalists, any external help is \u201ccheating\u201d. Even if the role has nothing to do with the skill of resume writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 46% of 1000 jobseekers recently admitted to using ChatGPT<\/a> to write cover letters or resumes \u2013 and 59% were hired. But then 11% were rejected when the employer learned they\u2019d used ChatGPT. So is using ChatGPT smart, or dishonest?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Is tricking the algorithm cheating \u2013 or pragmatic? What about if the candidate only white-fonts skills they actually have? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Is this different from white fonting? On the one hand, candidates highlighting points from your JD shows they\u2019re attentive and engaged. But what if they use AI to parse job descriptions and tailor their CV en-masse? Where\u2019s the line?<\/p>\n\n\n\n This probably feels like obvious cheating. But is there much difference between exaggerating<\/em> and using a professional writer to shine the best possible light<\/em>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Google. Reddit. ChatGPT. Copilot. Glassdoor. Stack Overflow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are heaps of places candidates can, theoretically, \u201ccheat\u201d. But using those channels doesn\u2019t automatically mean a candidate is cheating. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You might consider all of these cheating. But there\u2019s a strong argument that the first two or three are pragmatic, efficient ways developers solve problems on-the-job. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Our State of Tech Hiring 2024<\/a> report found that 70% of developers think AI will help reduce their workload, for example. So can we really say candidates using AI is \u201ccheating\u201d?<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n And another fly in the ointment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lots of recruiters wouldn\u2019t consider that cheating. In fact, lots of technical hiring processes still (inadvertently) interview specifically for<\/em> memorization. But is a good memory really the major skill for success?<\/a> We\u2019ll leave that with you\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n This is more cut-and-dried \u2013 but not totally. Candidates might cheat by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what about\u2026 calling a more senior developer for an opinion? Arguably cheating, but also arguably exactly what they\u2019d do on-the-job. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The point of these examples isn\u2019t to make you worry even more about cheating. It\u2019s to show that cheating is a spectrum. Ask fifty technical hiring managers what cheating looks like and you\u2019ll get fifty different answers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Cheating also varies by industry, role, location and seniority. <\/p>\n\n\n\n David Marr<\/a> \u2013 Principal Technical Sourcer for Coalfire \u2013 points out that cheating practices are often more common for contract roles than full-time, for example. <\/p>\n\n\n\n And CoderPad\u2019s VP of Engineering, Nathan Sutter<\/a>, says verbatim copy-paste answers are most common for graduate and junior roles because questions are most likely algorithmic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83c\udfac Webinar:<\/strong> Candidate Cheating vs. Candidate Experience in IT Recruitment<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Preventing cheating starts with defining \u2018cheating\u2019 in your own context. Then you can explore ways to address it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once you\u2019ve got your arms around the problem, you can pinpoint practical ways to mitigate. That\u2019s where the right tooling comes in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CoderPad\u2019s platform empowers you to run coding assessments and collaborative technical interviews<\/a>, with a heap of in-built anti-cheating features<\/a> you can toggle on if you need them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n CoderPad Screen<\/a> makes a heap of sense if you\u2019re struggling to get great resumes over to engineers. Especially if you\u2019re worried about the integrity of applications. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Recruitment-led resume screening is often a painful bottleneck because it\u2019s hard to sort the diamonds from the rough amid buckets of technical nuance. (And the rise of AI-CVs). Managers end up wasting time interviewing candidates who don\u2019t have basic technical skills, causing frustration and breeding internal resentment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Learn more about how CoderPad can help mitigate cheating in your tech hiring process.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But let\u2019s dig deeper into why you shouldn\u2019t just switch-on all these features and be done with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n McKinsey says<\/a> candidate experience should be one of technical recruiters\u2019 biggest strategic priorities. And no wonder. A great candidate experience can:<\/p>\n\n\n\n But taking a catch-all approach to mitigating cheating is directly counter to your candidate experience goals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine you switch on total copy\/paste blocking for all candidates. Yes, that\u2019ll stop candidates copying answers verbatim from elsewhere. But it\u2019ll also stop candidates checking and copying a piece of code from Stack Overflow, to avoid mistakes and save time. It comes back to your definitions: is that cheating?<\/p>\n\n\n Either way, serious developers aren\u2019t likely to take well to sweeping prohibitions that feel arbitrary and ridiculous. And no adult likes being treated like a child.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The upshot is: a fire-blanket approach to preventing cheating smothers everything \u2013 including your best candidates. That\u2019s never ideal, but it\u2019s especially not ideal given the ongoing developer shortage.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Tech recruiters need to balance preventing cheating with prioritizing candidate experience. The best way to do that is with a measured, pragmatic, case-by-case approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But there\u2019s also another, even bigger opportunity here. Because candidate experience isn\u2019t just a priority to juggle. Candidate experience can actually be your biggest lever to help prevent cheating in the first place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why do candidates cheat?<\/a> Because they\u2019re unskilled and want to convince you otherwise? Sure, occasionally. Some are desperate to get experience. A few subscribe to the \u2018fake it \u2018til you make it\u2019 philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But mostly, candidates are<\/em> skilled. But often they:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A great candidate experience can solve all those issues, to:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When you build a technical recruitment process like that, cheat rates plummet. Because you\u2019re dismantling the reasons most candidates cheat in the first place.<\/strong> You\u2019re building a process that\u2019s respectful, engaging, empathetic, and valuable for everyone involved.<\/p>\n\n\n Yes, you\u2019ll probably still get the 1% who were always going to cheat anyway. That\u2019s why you choose tooling with comprehensive cheating prevention functionality<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you also build a process that gives space for technical superstars to shine.\u00a0And then you can hire them!<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Let\u2019s talk about developers cheating on technical tests <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Cheating is a high-stakes problem<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
How do technical candidates cheat during recruitment?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-5.png\")
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-3.png\")
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-1.png\")
\n
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-2.png\")
What does cheating look like <\/strong>for you<\/em><\/strong>?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Practical ways to prevent and detect cheating<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Prevention\u2019s<\/strong> better than cure<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Detecting<\/strong> possible cheating <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/d2h1bfu6zrdxog.cloudfront.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/img_671f7a6e8fd9a.png\")
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead, CoderPad Screen empowers you to send candidates a short, gamified coding assessment that\u2019s scored to your criteria. It\u2019s better for everyone: Recruiters screen applications much faster and with way more confidence. Hiring managers only spend time interviewing the best candidates. Developers can show off their true skills in an engaging, fun way.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAddressing cheating needs a bow and arrow, not a scattergun<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-4.png\")
Candidate experience <\/strong>\u2b06\ufe0f<\/strong>, cheating <\/strong>\u2b07\ufe0f<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-6.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n