The company that the candidate previously worked for is typically not permitted to say anything about the candidate without prior authorization. Your proposed solution is not workable.

I've previously hired contractors with minimal interviewing because they came from a trusted partner to my organization, so I asked the partner about their productivity and skills and they were given good reviews relative to what we were trying to accomplish.

Each of them were a net negative with respect to the project. The time it took me to review their pull requests and help them write code which was passable was longer than it would have taken me to write the code myself. Additionally, the code that was passable has been a constant source of bugs.

A more thorough technical interview may have avoided hiring them. In retrospect, the correct course of action would have been to not hire anyone until someone qualified was available. This anecdote does support the grand-parent posters theory that operating with fewer incompetent people is better.

Additionally, their proposal is generally workable (which again, yours is not).

Competence is a spectrum and so at some level of competence there will be people who are competent but unable to pass overly complex interview questions. The fact that this overlap exists seems to be what you are complaining about. Even still, not hiring people in this overlap is probably safer than hiring people which make the system worse in my experience.

> Competence is a spectrum and so at some level of competence there will be people who are competent but unable to pass overly complex interview questions

Competence is most absolutely not one spectrum. Competence is measured in dozens (hundreds, really) different axis. Everyone will have different scores (if we could realiably narrow it to a score, which we can't) on different axis of skills. Which of the skill axis are most relevant for any given role will vary, obviously. A generalist will have decent scores in many, a specialist may have mediocre scores in many but 99+percentile in their chosen areas.

Leetcode interviewing measures along one single uninteresting axis, the one corresponding to memorization of algorithm puzzles. That axis happens to be entirely irrelevant to any job I've ever hired for. So I don't test for that because I care as much for your skill doing leetcode as I care for your skill juggling frogs. Neither is relevant to the job.

> memorization of algorithm puzzles

Have you considered that with a strong understanding of elementary algorithms and data structures it is possible "solve" rather than "memorize" these algorithm puzzles?

In the interview format it is most certainly not possible. It is a dance where both sides pretend that the interviewee is going to invent, in ~30 minutes, under intense interview stress, on a whiteboard, some algorithm that took usually years of research to originally develop.

If that were even remotely possible, why isn't that person cranking out multiple novel algorithm research papers per day? They should be outpublishing Knuth, for sure.

So, no. The only road is to memorize extensively and practice acting skills on the delivery.

Most leetcode problems I have seen are not research problem statements and usually require applying one or two algorithms taught in any CS program. So I have to disagree.

EDIT: Obviously even some of the most elementary Algo 101 problems were research questions at some point, and led to published papers, but that's the reason people write textbooks and use them in college, so newcomers don't have to redo the foundational work.

> The company that the candidate previously worked for is typically not permitted to say anything about the candidate without prior authorization. Your proposed solution is not workable.

You're right in that HR of their previous (likely current) employes won't say or allow saying anything.

But of course they're likely not giving as references their current boss, for obvious reasons.

Their previous bosses though, who have also left that company, will speak to you freely.

The case where you are able to speak to the candidate's boss because they have also left is incredibly niche.

> The case where you are able to speak to the candidate's boss because they have also left is incredibly niche.

What could be niche about this? It's the most overwhelmingly common case.

Most people change jobs every couple years and your interviewees ex-bosses are also in the industry doing the same job hopping. It is a near certainty that nearly all (if not all) their ex-bosses have moved to different companies already.

If I'm interviewing a candidate, they likely still work with their soon-to-be-former boss, who likely still works at the same company the candidate is leaving.

This is the most common case, by far.

Are you suggesting going further back, to the candidate's previous previous employer, and hoping that their direct manager from years ago is able to provide reliable and accurate testimony on the current state of the candidate ?

I said ex-boss, not current boss.

I'm surprised this is not a universal experience based on these responses. Every candidate I've interviewed has given at least one ex-boss as a reference. Every reference I've ever given has been ex-bosses.

Do you believe someone who hasn't worked with the candidate in years is a useful reference for the candidate today ?

Yes, of course. Their personality hasn't radically changed from a couple years back.

What you see in the CV is the name of the company they worked for, not the name of their direct manager.

I think back-in-the-day, the cryptic riddles were a (terrible) way of trying to filter "smart" candidates. The people who could come up with a solution to a problem never before seen. But almost no problems are truly original or new. They are just old problems with new packaging or with new/different requirements. So, usually what you end up testing for is nothing more than "has this person come across something like this before?"

Sometimes you'd get interviewers who were at least smart enough to realize that maybe the most you'd get out of it is "can this person break down a seemingly impossible problem into manageable pieces?" That's fine, but then state that or at least give them something real they'll actually run into if hired instead of trying to estimate how many gas stations there are in LA county in their head.

And while those suck[ed], companies having been doing similarly ridiculous things for a very long time to try and save themselves from hiring the wrong people. IBM's infamous "lunch interview" (false on Snopes, but the concept is true and I've seen played out) or asking candidates to take a personality type test to determine if they'd be a good fit before hiring (yes, I did this once early in my career and would just walk out if asked to do one today).

The most difficult I've found is getting fellow programmers to realize that they _don't_ want to hire another "you." Yes, you're an expert in networking and security. Don't interview for that so you can show off your own skills or "teach" in an interview. Interview _for the position_.

You want a diverse set of knowledge, skills, experiences, communication styles, etc. at your company. And - while it can be scary - you always want to hire people who are better than you (esp. if you're a manager!). But that is so hard to get people to do.

// This always strikes me as the answer that a computer science reclusive would take

Just to be clear, you made an assumption in your first sentence and then ran with it for 3 paragraphs.

// I would bet money

If I had to bet who can better assess what proper recruiting for a company looks like, I'd bet MY money on the company, not on random complaints on the internet that basically amount to "it must be the interview structure that prevents me from working at a FAANG"