This ignores a lot of the details of the real world:<p>> Because you should have enough public examples of your work avalaible for your potential employer to evaluate. If you don’t, for whatever reason, then take yourself a little more seriously and get some public stuff out there.<p>Many people don't have this. And why would they: it's hard to evaluate a candidate via bits of random code and half finished projects which took their fancy, that they worked on on their own.<p>> Employers … you ask for spec work when you are incapable of evaluating a candidate based on interviews and existing work.<p>That's right. It's fucking impossible to evaluate someone based on an interview (there have been hundreds of posts to HN on this topic in the last few years). Existing work is hit-and-miss.<p>I personally feel that spec work is the only way to seriously evaluate people, with the caveat that _we pay for it_. If you're serious about interviewing this person, paying their day rate for a day of their time is a reasonable way to ask people to do this.
<i>Can you imagine asking a lawyer or doctor to do spec work before “hiring” them?</i><p>Yes, for lawyers; I can imagine doing that because it is an absolutely routine practice. If you are at all likely to be a serious client, lawyers will give you hours and hours for free. Why wouldn't they? No invoice denominated in single-digit hours is going to move the dials for them anyways.
Doctors and lawyers do not need spec work because of professional licenses/certifications. The ABA asked your lawyer for spec work when she took the bar.<p><i>Dictionaries: not for loser bloggers</i>
What he is calling "spec work" would be better described as a "challenge project". I think these provide a lot of insight that you wouldn't have the opportunity to receive via the standard portfolio/github and interview process. If you give a job candidate a small project (3-5 hours tops), you're able to see how they solve problems and most importantly, how they interact with your team.<p>I've asked "A player" candidates to perform challenges, and I have happily performed them myself to get a job. And as a candidate, there have been a couple of time where I've realized via the challenge process, that I wouldn't want to work with a particular group.<p>It's a smart use of time by both parties to quickly determine if the candidate is indeed a good fit for the position.<p>Spec work, as in completing a project to receive consulting work, is an entirely different debate.
Why do others have to tell designers what they should and shouldn't do? They are smart enough to make their own decisions. I think it all depends on the project, the company, brand, and opportunity. Crowdsourcing and a traditional design process can still coexist.<p>I wrote a short blog post on this here:
<a href="http://blog.fantastic.me/2012/08/is-sepc-work-evil.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.fantastic.me/2012/08/is-sepc-work-evil.html</a>
We're hiring - no spec work, and if we did have spec work, we'd pay you.<p><a href="http://www.globalgiving.org/aboutus/jobs/software-engineer-for-good.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalgiving.org/aboutus/jobs/software-engineer-f...</a>
The designer revolt against 'spec work' is a byproduct of 99designs and crowdSPRING doing an excellent job of disrupting the way people hire designers. They want things the way they were: high prices and no competition once you find clients who like your work. However that isn't the best system for anybody other than them, which is why people are embracing a better way to do it.<p>Adapt or die, designers. The market is now a meritocracy. And that's the way it should be.<p>Now if only somebody would do this with programmers...