{"id":41367,"date":"2024-11-18T02:30:01","date_gmt":"2024-11-18T10:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/?p=41367"},"modified":"2024-11-18T07:17:17","modified_gmt":"2024-11-18T15:17:17","slug":"how-effective-is-your-cheating-prevention-strategy-a-self-assessment-guide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/coderpad.io\/blog\/hiring-developers\/how-effective-is-your-cheating-prevention-strategy-a-self-assessment-guide\/","title":{"rendered":"How Effective Is Your Cheating Prevention Strategy? A Self-Assessment Guide"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

How do you tackle cheating in technical interviews? How <\/strong>should <\/em><\/strong>you tackle it? Bring managers and recruiters together and work through these four questions, to evaluate your current cheating prevention measures and start mapping a strategy that meets everyone\u2019s needs \u2013 recruiters, managers, and candidates.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You thought Joe was great. You were excited for him to start. But within a week, it\u2019s abundantly clear that Joe can\u2019t actually\u2026 code. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The team\u2019s livid. Morale has plummeted. That big project gets delayed because everyone\u2019s fixing stuff Joe snarled up. Eventually HR steps in\u2026 and it\u2019s back to the job boards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But you\u2019ve learned your lessons. You load-up with proctoring; copy-paste blocking; IP tracking; screen lockdowns \u2013 across every role, region, and geography. And you make questions harder and harder. Ha! Cast-iron. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Except now, completion rates plummet. Candidate feedback plummets. Application volume plummets. Your Glassdoor profile fills up with disgruntled reviews warning developers not to waste their time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure, cheating seems like a smaller problem. But hiring is a bigger one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s the battle many organizations face when hiring technical talent. So how do you tread the line effectively? What\u2019s the right level of mitigation, to tackle cheating without derailing the candidate experience<\/a>? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer depends on your organization. Work through our four-question self-assessment guide below, to spark discussion towards calibrating a perfect-for-you cheating prevention strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four questions to guide your cheating prevention strategy<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\u2753 What does \u201ccheating\u201d mean for your organization?<\/strong>
1. We haven\u2019t defined cheating
2. We let our engineering managers decide case-by-case
3. We have a very strict policy. No AI. No copy-and-paste. 
4. _______________________<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Cheating might seem an obvious concept but it\u2019s nuanced. Is using AI to create a resume cheating or smart?<\/a> What about using Copilot to generate ideas and editing code from there? Cheating or efficient?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To decide the right level of cheating prevention for your organization, you need to know what you\u2019re trying to prevent. Otherwise you\u2019ll lean towards blanket catch-all solutions that hurt more than help. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s like walling-up a window to prevent mosquitos. Sure, it might work. But it\u2019s overkill. And there are major downsides. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think about the balance you want to strike between manager control and central policy, too. It\u2019ll be different for every organization but mostly, disempowering managers with catch-all restrictions is counterintuitive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\u2019re the people on the frontline who know best who\u2019ll excel. And they\u2019re unlikely to take kindly to universal policies that hurt their ability to hire the best people. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
(Source<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

That said though, some degree of coordinated central policy acts as a guardrail. To keep your process consistent and fair, and give managers support to make good decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could the organization choose tools that allow each manager to opt-in for different cheating prevention functionality depending on their needs, for instance? <\/p>\n\n\n\n


\u2753 How much cheating actually happens in your process?<\/strong>
1. We suspect cheating happens but aren\u2019t certain
2. We\u2019ve found some candidates cheating
3. We frequently find candidates cheating
4. _______________________<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

If you haven\u2019t actually found anyone cheating, could you be overestimating the scale of the problem?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a heap of pearl-clutching about GenAI and cheating<\/a>. But the plural of anecdote isn\u2019t data. You need more evidence, to guide a response that\u2019s proportionate. Not panicked. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
(Source<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Think about how you identify possible cheating. If you write-off candidates immediately on the basis of suspicious behaviors, you risk missing great developers. Suspicious behavior is a call to dig deeper into a candidate\u2019s approach, not to blacklist. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why CoderPad Screen includes AI-generated and validated follow-up questions, to check candidates\u2019 understanding of code. And CoderPad Interview\u2019s code playback functionality means interviewers can replay the entire interview, to see how candidates wrote code and spot areas worth further questions.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And review your cheat rates regularly. Preventing cheating isn\u2019t a one-and-done, because the problem morphs over time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider why cheating happens<\/a>. In a high-competition job market, you\u2019re probably experiencing more cheating, for example. Even great candidates might believe cheating\u2019s the only way to gain a much-needed edge. And the problem starts to snowball as cheating\u2019s normalized. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
(Source<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Ouch \u261d\ufe0f<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But don\u2019t get caught in the same trap. Getting a handle on cheating can feel like chasing someone downhill, sprinting faster and faster. But you\u2019ll eventually lose control \u2013 and slowing or changing direction becomes impossible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Candidate behavior is fickle. Successful hiring demands a nimble, agile, responsive strategy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n


\u2753 Where does cheating happen?<\/strong>
1. We don\u2019t know but we\u2019re worried
2. Nowhere: we have cast-iron control over our processes
3. We\u2019ve spotted some specific areas where cheating happens
4. _______________________<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There are heaps of touchpoints where cheating *might* happen during hiring.<\/a> But effective cheating mitigation demands a sniper, not a scattergun. The aim is to avoid collateral damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019re worried about cheating but there\u2019s no concrete evidence, preventative measures are your best bet. For example, CoderPad\u2019s platform has plenty of features designed to stop cheating<\/a> before it starts \u2013 without <\/em>hurting the candidate experience with rigid, hardline measures. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n