What Students Really Think About Tech Hiring Tests

Last updated: September 30, 2026

Pre-hire technical assessments are a standard part of landing an engineering job. But how do students from underrepresented groups actually feel about them? CodeSignal's Skills Evaluation Lab recently held focus groups with 40 Black and Latinx software engineering students to find out. The results challenge assumptions about what makes these assessments work and where they fall short.

• Forty Black and Latinx software engineering students took part
• Sessions held in partnership with ColorStack, a nonprofit for Black and Latinx CS students
• CodeSignal's IO Psychologists conducted more than a dozen focus groups
• All participants had personally taken these kinds of evaluations before
• Key themes emerged around fairness, clarity, and preparation support

Why This Matters for Tech Hiring

The findings reveal a gap between how companies design assessments and how candidates experience them. Students consistently said they see these tests as a chance to get noticed. As one student explained, completing an assessment meant finally getting recognition beyond a resume.

That matters. Candidates want to demonstrate skills. They are not looking for shortcuts or easier paths. They want fair chances to show what they can do.

When assessments feel job-relevant and well-structured, students report feeling they have agency in the hiring process. They appreciate timed tests they can complete on their own. It feels more merit-based than submitting a resume into a void.

But the opposite also rings true. That feeling compares poorly with submitting an application and hearing nothing back. Students contrasted this with companies that offer no evaluation at all, leaving candidates waiting indefinitely with no feedback.

The Consistency Problem

Students pointed out that technical assessments vary wildly between organizations. The questions asked often seem unclear in purpose. Many participants found themselves thinking, "Why are they even asking me this?"

The most common complaint centered on relevance. They believed these tools should measure the exact competencies required for the role and evaluate fundamental technical knowledge. Too often, that was not what they got. Questions disconnected from actual job requirements left students confused and disengaged. Some assessments met expectations, but many left participants asking, "What's the point?"

This matters for hiring teams too. Assessments measuring the wrong things select for the wrong candidates. A test that feels arbitrary probably is measuring something arbitrary.

Stress Is Real, Preparation Is Lacking

Given that these assessments "can make or break you," pressure runs high. Students described technical evaluations as "difficult" and "daunting," especially the first time around. Being evaluated means performing at your peak to distinguish yourself from other applicants.

Yet students reported surprise at how little companies help them prepare. They consistently mentioned needing study materials, practice resources, and clear guidance on what skills companies actually want.

Students said they often do not know what skills the company prioritizes. This lack of transparency creates unnecessary anxiety and undermines the assessment's effectiveness. When candidates cannot prepare properly, companies may miss qualified people who simply did not guess right.

Our Analysis

Some students accepted assessments as inevitable. They called them "just part of the process," one of the first steps before even talking to a person. But even those who normalized the experience acknowledged the stakes. These tests can determine whether your job search goes anywhere.

The real losers in the current system are candidates who lack networks sharing tips or access to prep materials. The inconsistency across assessments benefits people who can take many tests and learn from each one. It penalizes those applying selectively to specific companies.

Say you are a computer science student preparing for interviews. You visit three company career pages. One asks you to complete a timed coding challenge with clear instructions. Another provides a practice test and lists the skills being measured. The third sends a vague problem with no guidance. The first two feel legitimate. You know what success looks like. The third feels like a trap designed to fail. Which company would you prioritize?

What to Watch Next

The focus group findings point toward clear improvements. Companies that align assessments with actual job requirements, provide transparency about what they measure, and offer preparation resources will likely attract stronger candidates and receive more completed tests. For job seekers, the practical takeaway is to seek out companies that provide clear assessment guidelines. That transparency signals an employer who takes hiring seriously.

Key takeaways

• Pre-hire assessments are valued by candidates when they feel job-relevant and fair
• Inconsistency across different company assessments creates confusion and frustration
• Students need better preparation resources and clearer signals about what skills companies want
• Companies that provide transparent, job-focused assessments will likely see better candidate engagement

Source: codesignal.com