Practise the standard verbs for reviewing a take-home assignment fairly.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ every take-home submission against the same rubric, so two candidates' work is judged by consistent criteria rather than whoever happened to review it.'
We 'grade a submission' — the standard, simple collocation for evaluating a candidate's work against set criteria. The other options are less idiomatic here.
2 / 5
Fill in: 'Reviewing submissions with no shared rubric can ___ two comparable candidates rated wildly differently purely because of who happened to read their code first.'
We say an inconsistent process will 'leave' comparable candidates rated unevenly — the standard, natural collocation for the resulting unfairness. The other options aren't idiomatic here.
3 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ the assignment's actual time estimate honestly upfront, since an unpaid task that quietly takes three times longer than stated tends to filter out good people unfairly.'
We 'state an estimate' — the standard, simple collocation for honestly communicating the expected effort of a task. The other options are less idiomatic here.
4 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ specific, written feedback to every candidate afterward, rather than sending a bare accept or reject with no explanation at all.'
We 'provide feedback' — the standard, simple collocation for giving a candidate concrete, useful comments. The other options are less idiomatic here.
5 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ the candidate's design choices in a follow-up conversation, since a live discussion of their own reasoning reveals more than the submitted code alone.'
We 'discuss a choice' — the standard, simple collocation for exploring a candidate's reasoning directly. The other options aren't idiomatic here.