Reconsidering: Take-home assignments for PM interviews
In the LLM era, what are they good for? Absolutely nothing???
A CPO friend of mine — late-stage startup, north of $1B valuation — likes take-home assignments as a signal on how candidates think and communicate. LLMs have complicated that.
Before the LLM era, take-home assignments had four possible jobs from the evaluator’s POV.
They were a writing test: PRDs, user stories, stakeholder updates — PMs write constantly, and a take-home was a clear signal on writing skill.
They helped test for judgment and structured thinking — how does this person frame a problem, what info do they prioritize?
They leveled the playing field for candidates who didn’t perform as well under live pressure but could shine in an environment they controlled.
And for some hiring managers (especially founders), take-home assignments act as a filter for people who were serious about that company. (I was never personally a fan of this reason, but also, I was not the founder).
Downsides are twofold: On the candidate side, take-homes are a real burden — has anyone ever actually finished one in the suggested time? On the evaluator side, when designed poorly, (i.e. the assignment maps directly to the company’s current priorities), a bad assignment creates reputational risk when it starts to feel like free work. At best, that leaves a bad impression. At worst, it’s exploitative.
In the LLM era, I’m not sure take-home assignments make much sense anymore.
The job itself doesn’t require stellar writing skills. B+ writing is completely commoditized at this point, and from a business impact POV, this is probably good enough.
Meanwhile, take-homes can still give you signal on judgment and structured thinking. You just have to squint a bit harder.
I’ve never been a super-fan of take-home exercises. Even before LLMs, I was sensitive to the reputation risk and time burden. (I’m even more sensitive now that I have a toddler who sleeps late and wakes up early. Save us.) Now that writing is commoditized, I’m not convinced the signal justifies the ask.
My experience tells me that a good live interview gets you plenty of data about judgment and structured thinking — without asking a candidate to give up a weekend. Yes, you lose the accommodation for those who thrive in more controlled environments, but IMO real-time dynamism is a necessity at fast-moving early stage startups (who I tend to work with).
With one caveat: that CPO friend recently received a submission that was clearly unedited AI slop. She wanted to reject him on the spot — not for using AI, but for not even trying. Maybe that’s what take-homes are for now.