I find whiteboarding useful on the hiring end and fun on the hiree end. I can tell if a candidate can think on their feet (literally), if they can think without an IDE and a little about how they present themselves.
It allows smooth panel interviews and interactive "coding". It's not about testing what you do day-to-day, it's about how you think and collaborate dynamically outside your comfort zone.
The rest of your stuff I am in complete agreement with with one addition, companies which don't publish their technologies because they "want people who can adapt". Just tells me they want contractors and not experts.
My problem with whiteboarding is that many people struggle with that skill, but are wonderful programmers. I think it's an arbitrary test, and there isn't any real science or data behind the practice.
If employers were excluding candidates based on it, I'd agree. I don't have any tests which are supposed to be exclusionary in and of themselves. I prefer to look at the interview as a whole and it's just as important to understand where someone is weak as where they are strong. I like my programming challenge to be a little more than the candidate can handle and I like to know how strong they are if they are required to present their work.
If they ace the programming challenge, I like them as a person then how they do in the whiteboard makes little difference. If their programming challenge is average then the whiteboard session may well save it.
Judging developers purely on their ability to ace technical challenges leaves you little room for growth when you need team leaders, client facing devs, integration engineers which imho are all better promoted from within your ranks than hired.
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 find whiteboarding useful on the hiring end and fun on the hiree end. I can tell if a candidate can think on their feet (literally), if they can think without an IDE and a little about how they present themselves.
It allows smooth panel interviews and interactive "coding". It's not about testing what you do day-to-day, it's about how you think and collaborate dynamically outside your comfort zone.
The rest of your stuff I am in complete agreement with with one addition, companies which don't publish their technologies because they "want people who can adapt". Just tells me they want contractors and not experts.
My problem with whiteboarding is that many people struggle with that skill, but are wonderful programmers. I think it's an arbitrary test, and there isn't any real science or data behind the practice.
If employers were excluding candidates based on it, I'd agree. I don't have any tests which are supposed to be exclusionary in and of themselves. I prefer to look at the interview as a whole and it's just as important to understand where someone is weak as where they are strong. I like my programming challenge to be a little more than the candidate can handle and I like to know how strong they are if they are required to present their work.
If they ace the programming challenge, I like them as a person then how they do in the whiteboard makes little difference. If their programming challenge is average then the whiteboard session may well save it.
Judging developers purely on their ability to ace technical challenges leaves you little room for growth when you need team leaders, client facing devs, integration engineers which imho are all better promoted from within your ranks than hired.