The problem with credentialism is that lots of people with degrees from reputable universities can’t code.
Similarly lots of people with significant industry experience… also can’t code.
Similarly lots of people with significant industry experience… also can’t code.
And yet, when scanning resumes, people often look for prestigious/"reputable" universities as a filter. Is the assumption that if they have a degree from Stanford and can reverse a string then that is a positive signal, but if they can't reverse a string that is somehow a personal failing and not a failure of the university to educate (and then evaluate) the candidate?
What's the alternative? Just give leetcode tests to people who didn't go to the same university as the hiring panel?
The fact that we have the same tests for everyone no matter where they studied at is a good thing and prevents nepotism in hiring decisions.
What I am noticing on all threads about HN hiring: Hiring knowledge workers is fundamentally a difficult, fuzzy process. Few want to admit it. And, there are some people are naturally much better at it because they can control themselves very well during an interview. People who are very strong at solving puzzles will nearly always outperform during interviews for hands-on roles. More than anything, interviewing feels like dating. Everyone hates it until you find what you are looking for... then it becomes: "Oh, it worked fine for me."
That's why the time machine is so important - to get back any CS degrees issued to people who can't code.
So I think you are actually agreeing with me?
in the networking side of these we used to have a couple of Cisco 2960s with slightly borked configs and our interviewees had to log in and tell us what's wrong. 5 minute activity, but often took some folks 30 minutes.