Latest / The Career Change Podcast with Fexingo: Switching Fields, Bootcamps, and Reskilling / How Bootcamp Grads Can Ace Take-Home Coding Challenges
Transcript
- Lucas: So you finish bootcamp, you've got a GitHub profile with a few projects, you start applying — and then you get an email that says 'complete this take-home challenge within 72 hours.' Luna: And suddenly it's not about your portfolio anymore. It's about this one weird project they sent you at 7 PM on a Thursday. Lucas: Exactly. And for bootcamp grads especially, take-home challenges can feel like this high-stakes pop quiz. But they're actually one of the best opportunities you have to show how you think — not just whether you can invert a binary tree on a whiteboard. Luna: I love that framing. Can we walk through what a good take-home challenge actually looks like from the company's side? Lucas: Totally. A well-designed challenge — and I want to emphasize not all of them are well-designed — should simulate a realistic work task. Maybe it's building a small API endpoint, consuming a public data set, or fixing a bug in a legacy codebase. The company wants to see your workflow: how you read requirements, how you structure code, how you handle edge cases. Luna: And yet so many bootcamp grads I talk to treat it like a speedrun. They open the spec, start typing immediately, and submit something that works but is impossible to read. Lucas: Right. So let me lay out a framework I've seen work really well. Step one: read the entire spec twice before you write a single line of code. Step two: plan your approach — draw a diagram, list the components you'll need. Step three: write the simplest thing that works, then refactor. Step four: document everything. Luna: The documentation part — that's the README, right? A lot of people skip that. Lucas: Yeah, and that's a huge missed opportunity. A clear README tells the reviewer: here's how to run my code, here's my design rationale, here's what I'd do with more time. It's literally a free chance to communicate your thinking without them having to read every line. Luna: I've even heard of hiring managers making decisions based on the README alone. If it's sloppy, they assume the code is too. Lucas: Exactly. So one practical tip: before you even open your editor, create a README dot MD file and start outlining. Write the problem statement in your own words. That forces you to confirm you understand the ask. Then list your assumptions, then your approach. By the time you write code, the hardest part — thinking — is already done. Luna: Let's get concrete. Can we talk about a specific challenge? I remember a case from a mid-sized SaaS company — let's call it CloudSync — where the task was to build a simple user dashboard that pulls from a mock API and displays some stats. Lucas: Oh yeah, I know that one. It's popular because it tests front-end skills, API integration, and state management all at once. A common pitfall is that candidates spend hours trying to make it look beautiful instead of making it work reliably. Luna: What did the successful candidates do differently? Lucas: Three things. First, they wrote tests — even simple unit tests for the data fetching logic. That immediately signals discipline. Second, they handled loading and error states — not just the happy path. Third, they added a small feature beyond the spec, like sorting or filtering, and documented why they chose it. Luna: That 'beyond the spec' piece — that's risky, right? If you add the wrong thing, it could backfire. Lucas: It can. I'd say only add something if you're confident it's aligned with the role. For a front-end position, a nice micro-interaction or accessibility improvement is safe. For a back-end role, maybe add logging or input validation. The key is to make it clear that it's extra, and to explain your reasoning in the README. Luna: So the message is: show that you can prioritise. Lucas: Exactly. Now let's talk about time management. Most challenges come with a suggested time limit — maybe 'this should take 4–6 hours.' Here's the truth: no one is actually timing you. But if you spend 20 hours on something that should take 6, that's a red flag. Luna: I've heard hiring managers say they can tell when someone spent way too long because the code is over-engineered — abstracted to the point of absurdity. Lucas: Right. On the flip side, if you submit something in two hours that looks like a quick hack, that's also a problem. The sweet spot is to invest about 8–10 hours for a challenge that says 4–6. That gives you time to polish without going overboard. And track your time — note in your README that you spent roughly eight hours. Transparency is appreciated. Luna: Alright, but what about the challenges themselves? Some of them are just bad. I've seen specs that are contradictory, or tasks that are basically unpaid labor — like 'build us a full e-commerce platform.' Lucas: That's a huge red flag. If a challenge asks you to build something that looks like it could be shipped to production, that company is likely taking advantage of candidates. You should feel empowered to push back or even decline. Luna: How do you decline gracefully? You don't want to burn a bridge. Lucas: You can say something like 'I appreciate the opportunity to showcase my skills. Given the scope of this challenge, I'm concerned I won't be able to do it justice in the suggested timeframe. Could we discuss an alternative assessment, like a pair programming session?' If they say no, you've dodged a bullet. Luna: That's a good line. I want to come back to something you mentioned earlier — the idea that take-home challenges are a chance to show how you think. Can we unpack that? How does the reviewer actually evaluate that? Lucas: Sure. Most reviewers will skim your code for structure, then look at tests, then read the README. They're asking: does this person write code that's easy to understand? Do they separate concerns? Do they handle errors? Do they make reasonable trade-offs? One thing that stands out is when a candidate includes a section in the README called 'What I'd do with more time' — it shows you're thinking about the future. Luna: I've seen that too. It's almost like a mini design doc. And it lets you demonstrate knowledge without having to implement it — like saying 'I'd add caching with Redis' or 'I'd containerize this with Docker.' Lucas: Exactly. That's a low-effort way to signal seniority. Now, another thing to consider: many companies will ask you to present your solution in a follow-up interview. So don't just submit and forget — prepare a short walk-through of your architecture, your key decisions, and one thing you'd improve. Luna: So you're saying the take-home isn't just a submission — it's the first slide of your presentation. Lucas: Exactly. And bootcamp grads often underestimate how much that presentation matters. I've seen candidates with mediocre solutions get hired because they explained their thinking clearly and confidently. And I've seen candidates with perfect code get rejected because they couldn't articulate why they made certain choices. Luna: So communication is the differentiator. Let's talk about one more concrete tip: testing. For bootcamp grads, writing tests can feel like extra work, but it's probably the highest-leverage thing you can do. Lucas: Absolutely. If your challenge includes a simple test suite already, add to it. If not, set up a basic testing framework and write at least three tests: one for the happy path, one for an edge case, and one for error handling. That alone will put you in the top 20 percent of candidates. Luna: And it protects you from basic mistakes. I've heard horror stories where a candidate's solution worked on their machine but failed because of a hardcoded URL or missing environment variable. Lucas: Right. So before you submit, run your code from scratch in a fresh directory. Make sure your instructions are accurate. That's the kind of diligence that hiring teams notice. Luna: I want to throw in a personal story. When I was applying for my first tech role, I had a take-home that asked me to build a weather dashboard. I spent a whole weekend on it, and when I submitted, the recruiter never even looked at it — they'd already filled the position. That stung. Lucas: That's frustrating, and honestly, it's bad practice on the company's part. But it's also a reason to set your own boundaries. Don't let a take-home consume your entire life. If you haven't heard back in a week, follow up. If they ghost, move on. The challenge is also a test of how the company treats you. Luna: That's a good perspective. Alright, let's say you've submitted a solid take-home — what's next? How do you maximize your chances in the follow-up? Lucas: First, re-read your own code before the interview. You'd be surprised how quickly you forget details. Then, prepare three talking points: one thing you're proud of, one trade-off you made, and one thing you'd do differently. That structure shows self-awareness and growth mindset. And be ready to accept feedback live — if the reviewer suggests an improvement, don't get defensive. Say 'that's a great point, I hadn't considered that, I'd approach it differently next time.' Luna: I think that's a great place to wrap up the tactical advice. Before we go, I want to zoom out a bit. For bootcamp grads in particular, the take-home challenge is often the first real taste of 'this is what work feels like.' It's not just a hoop to jump through — it's practice for the job. Lucas: That's a really good way to put it. And honestly, if we've helped you think through your approach to a take-home, or if this episode helped you land a job, that's the kind of thing that makes producing this show worthwhile. We keep it ad-free because listener support makes it possible. Luna: Yeah. So if today's advice was worth a coffee to you, that's the link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small gesture that goes a long way toward keeping this show independent and focused on what matters to you. Lucas: Absolutely. And now, back to the code. One last thought: after you submit, take a moment to reflect on what you learned. Even if you don't get the job, you've built something you can add to your portfolio and talk about in the next interview. Every challenge makes you better. Luna: That's the mindset that separates people who eventually land their dream role from those who get discouraged. So keep at it, keep improving, and treat each challenge as a stepping stone. Lucas: Exactly. And if you've got a take-home horror story or a success story, we'd love to hear it. You can reach us on Twitter or through the Fexingo website. Luna: Alright, that's our show for today. Thanks for listening, and we'll catch you next time on The Career Change Podcast.