When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

Re:When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re s... by droithomme on Monday January 21, 2019 @01:15AM (#18958062)

It's a highly effective and quick disqualifier.

100% of those that couldn't do it are not qualified candidates.

Some of those that could do it are good candidates.

When you bring in someone that has a nice looking CV and experience and recommendations and you ask them a very basic question and they can't respond at all, it is a safe disqualifier. It also doesn't take six hours.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re s... by unclebucknasty on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:33AM (#18960985)

>Some of those that could do it are good candidates.

Looks like you edited your comment. In any case, that's a non-statement, as some is quite different from nearly all (i.e. 90%).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re s... by unclebucknasty on Monday January 21, 2019 @01:34AM (#18958154)

>100% of those that couldn't do it are not qualified candidates.

OP stated nearly the inverse: that 90% of those who can do it are qualified candidates.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re s... by dkersten on Monday January 21, 2019 @07:05AM (#18959786)

So you discard 100% of those who can’t do it, knowing that 90% of the rest are qualified.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re s... by unclebucknasty on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:24AM (#18960938)

That's a different argument that gets us back to the original premise I disputed, so you're now just begging the question with numbers.

That is, your numbers are only valid if I accept the premise that I'm rejecting. I don't believe that 90% of people who can answer such a basic question are qualified.

[ Parent | on HN ]