A recruiter contacted me via LinkedIn for a product design role and we scheduled a 50 min phone screener. The questions were typical of a recruiter and were not of much substance. We initially discussed an remote individual contributor role but I inquired about the remote Design Director role and decided that was more appropriate. The recruiter talked about how MetaLab "does remote right" and I discussed remote work with a MetaLab designer and neither could define what "does remote right" means. I was given a UI assignment, paid at $30/hr, with a 10hr max and the call ended. The assignment description seemed like it hadn't been updated in several years and was fairly typical for agencies like MetaLab who hire on visual aesthetic alone instead of the why behind the work. Beware of assignments, in general, used as an interview tool. This type of tool does not allow for you to work your process nor work as part of a team and does not represent all of your talent and potential. After throwing the assignment over the fence, with no opportunity to discuss the decisions behind my work, I receive a cryptic email: "Thank you for your time on the design challenge. We really appreciated your approach, but are going to move forward with other candidates at this time who better fit our needs on the visual / UI side." These types of responses are fairly common as a part of the job search process and frustrating to the recipient. But it doesn't have to be. I challenge recruiters and hiring managers to rethink the need for design challenges and take-home assignments, give applicants the opportunity to defend and explain their work and put more thought into their rejection responses instead of copy and paste.