Employers in pretty much every other field complain that credentials are close to meaningless. As a result, they heavily emphasize work experience and demonstrable work accomplishments in hiring. This creates a problem for newcomers who have difficulty bootstrapping experience. Software engineering is unique in that you can at least get some idea of a person's ability through a day of interviewing (whiteboard interviews may not be a perfect measure of competence/ability, but they're way better than what is available in most fields), and don't need to use experience or credentials as a gauge of ability (though they use them as screening criteria to sift through the many applications they get, which is where Triplebyte comes in handy). The fact that employers directly assess the skills of job candidates is a benefit, not a drawback, for the field of software engineering.
>Triplebyte's value proposition is to be such a trusted third party for software engineering, since universities aren't. If companies don't trust it, and view people who passed Triplebyte with the same "incompetent fraud until proven otherwise" lens they apply to everyone else, then Triplebyte isn't adding value for anyone in the ecosystem.
Triplebyte is adding clear value to the ecosystem by finding candidates who would have otherwise fallen through the cracks and never gotten an interview in the first place, and matching them with potential employers. In my case, for example, Triplebyte has provided value to both me and Asana by matching us up together. Because of my nontraditional background, had I applied directly to Asana, my application would likely have never made it past their resume screen, and they would have missed out on a great candidate and I would have missed out on a great opportunity.
Almost all other fields are capable of trusting third parties to certify competence. They interview for fit, but with a basic understanding that the candidate is qualified.
Employers waste less time giving interviews, and benefit from a more accurate filter than they could develop in-house.
Employees waste less time giving interviews, and will find out early (i.e. by failing college classes, prompting them to switch majors) if the work isn't for them. Good practitioners are unlikely to be denied their dream jobs by the unreliability of the interview process, and truly incompetent practitioners aren't allowed to keep trying until something sticks because (below some threshold) they'll never get in the door. They're given the benefit of the doubt for making it through the main gate (undergrad/bar exam/whatever) and from there, judged on the basis of their performance in their actual role, not how well the study for a song-and-dance routine that approximates the role.
Triplebyte's value proposition is to be such a trusted third party for software engineering, since universities aren't. If companies don't trust it, and view people who passed Triplebyte with the same "incompetent fraud until proven otherwise" lens they apply to everyone else, then Triplebyte isn't adding value for anyone in the ecosystem.
I think you can realistically expect the skills test to be culled from interview processes: in other fields, it never even appeared.