I didn't mean it like that. Might have been too fast.
Some sort of test is necessary or way to fibd out someone is good or not. I've hired people that looked and talked their way into it, to find out after the fact they were no good. Even people with 15-20 years of experience.
We ask for a test when we can't be sure of the potential of the candidate. There are devs that are pearls out there that are either too shy or really bad at interview. This apply to them too when they have no way of showing off something they did.
Its not always necessary but it surely is often.
Sorry for the harsness of my first comment. Pretty dure you aren't lazy. Taking the time to write this article is a proof of that.
You're absolutely right in that I cannot deny "developers" make their way into situations they don't belong in. Someone who can properly verbalize their way through an interview is not the 100% positive indicator of their skills in the field. No argument there.
To posit a counterargument, references, contributions to open source, personal projects and the like should be heavily considered in such a case.
I think respectfully discerning when a test is necessary versus when it is not would go a long way towards improving the situation. At least if not to make sure you are not potentially "scaring away" awesome developers because he/she is not keen on being tested. Again.
It sounds like that is the approach you take. Choosing when to employ a test as is necessary instead of a blanket requirement. I applaud that.
It still feels like there's an underlying factor that is not being addressed. At least not articulated well enough to be addressed. Why did this interview gate become necessary? Where did we fail, in the industry, in such a way to warrant this?
Your argument is one I have heard before, and rightfully so, where someone has presented themselves in a manner that seems befitting of the job and you only found out later that it was not an accurate representation of themselves.
I feel like there are some open questions even there: Are we certain that developers consistently misrepresent themselves (perhaps deceitfully for selfish gain, usually to make money with low effort)? Are we certain that employers / interviewers are not misrepresenting the job requirements, perhaps? Are we certain that we are asking all the right questions during an interview process (bar an actual test) that might easily flush out mismatches? Are we diligently following through on things like checking references and talking to an interviewers colleagues or past employers?
It feels like, to me, both sides make a bad situation worse and that, in my opinion, is an indicator that the real problem is not addressed.
Maybe that opinion is wrong. I would be happy to be corrected on it.
The answer to the main question, you already answered it: caring.
There is too much people that just doesn't care. Being a coder isn't just something you can be good at if you don't want to improve and work on yourself.
School and diploma just give a hint of what the real world is. There are tons of self-opportunity out there that anybody can do to get that experience without having a real job.
Unfortunately, most of the candidate just don't and makes us cautious about the potential good dev.
I totally agree with having something to back you up with project or open-source participation.
I hired one dev that had zero education in the field. He would just love to code in his basement all the times. This guy was 100 better than any other coder I had that went to university. All that because he was caring and living it.
The best dev imo are the one that love their job and that need to self control themselves to not stay and continue to code and improve.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I didn't mean it like that. Might have been too fast.
Some sort of test is necessary or way to fibd out someone is good or not. I've hired people that looked and talked their way into it, to find out after the fact they were no good. Even people with 15-20 years of experience.
We ask for a test when we can't be sure of the potential of the candidate. There are devs that are pearls out there that are either too shy or really bad at interview. This apply to them too when they have no way of showing off something they did.
Its not always necessary but it surely is often.
Sorry for the harsness of my first comment. Pretty dure you aren't lazy. Taking the time to write this article is a proof of that.
I appreciate the clarity.
You're absolutely right in that I cannot deny "developers" make their way into situations they don't belong in. Someone who can properly verbalize their way through an interview is not the 100% positive indicator of their skills in the field. No argument there.
To posit a counterargument, references, contributions to open source, personal projects and the like should be heavily considered in such a case.
I think respectfully discerning when a test is necessary versus when it is not would go a long way towards improving the situation. At least if not to make sure you are not potentially "scaring away" awesome developers because he/she is not keen on being tested. Again.
It sounds like that is the approach you take. Choosing when to employ a test as is necessary instead of a blanket requirement. I applaud that.
It still feels like there's an underlying factor that is not being addressed. At least not articulated well enough to be addressed. Why did this interview gate become necessary? Where did we fail, in the industry, in such a way to warrant this?
Your argument is one I have heard before, and rightfully so, where someone has presented themselves in a manner that seems befitting of the job and you only found out later that it was not an accurate representation of themselves.
I feel like there are some open questions even there: Are we certain that developers consistently misrepresent themselves (perhaps deceitfully for selfish gain, usually to make money with low effort)? Are we certain that employers / interviewers are not misrepresenting the job requirements, perhaps? Are we certain that we are asking all the right questions during an interview process (bar an actual test) that might easily flush out mismatches? Are we diligently following through on things like checking references and talking to an interviewers colleagues or past employers?
It feels like, to me, both sides make a bad situation worse and that, in my opinion, is an indicator that the real problem is not addressed.
Maybe that opinion is wrong. I would be happy to be corrected on it.
Yes. Absolutely.
The answer to the main question, you already answered it: caring.
There is too much people that just doesn't care. Being a coder isn't just something you can be good at if you don't want to improve and work on yourself.
School and diploma just give a hint of what the real world is. There are tons of self-opportunity out there that anybody can do to get that experience without having a real job.
Unfortunately, most of the candidate just don't and makes us cautious about the potential good dev.
I totally agree with having something to back you up with project or open-source participation.
I hired one dev that had zero education in the field. He would just love to code in his basement all the times. This guy was 100 better than any other coder I had that went to university. All that because he was caring and living it.
The best dev imo are the one that love their job and that need to self control themselves to not stay and continue to code and improve.