This would be great because if the code stinks to high heaven then I won't work there. When they think I'm not a fit for not understanding their code, the feeling would be mutual.
But everywhere has code that stinks. And it's hard to find people with the skills and experience to get rid if it. Before it can be gotten rid off, it must be understood.
In a sense it might be valuable to use the poor code in a reading screen. Firstly so we can agree it stinks, and the reasons why. And secondly, to find people with the attitude required to clean up messes that they didn't create (good scouts).
Even when the job is greenfield, or extending great code, I'd rather have engineers with the battle scars of doing tough maintenance.
Often times it requires not only a lot of skill but also a lot of work.
I can do it but be prepared to pay me 2-3 times the normal wage.
Attitudes will change in the next decade when vulnerabilities in software and tech become more obvious, serious, and regulated. Right now we're all happy hogs feeding from the trough of few meaningful standards, but the time will come when we are blamed for human lives lost as a result of bad code, and it's no longer going to be funny that we get paid so much to write such shit. As well, doing whatever companies pay us to do will become more shameful. From much of what I read here on HN and what I've seen in my own experience, way too many software developers will do practically anything for money and prestige.
This is why the selfishness of only wanting to work with teams that write decent code is actually more beneficial for society than "fail fast, bruh". Already, the tech bruhs aren't revered so much as they were even a handful of years ago.
But TBH mission critical software has completely different set of checkboxes that are not so easy to fulfill.
The management has to be set up to allow for this. People have to be able to work towards something as a team; else we are all cleaning in different directions.