Separate to solving hiring, maybe we should solve this instead first?

In my part of the world specifically, the reason you get this is largely due to quota pressures by government. Government actively economically disadvantages white-privilege companies that don't fill unreasonable DEI quotas, effectively making an educational deficiency in the government's programs as a problem that the "private sector" has to fix 15-years too-late whether at University or in the workplace.

So everyone just passes the buck because they can't fix it nor can they speak the truth about the real cause, until at the end of chain the company making widgets/products/things has to take a hit and passes this problem on to the consumer in the form of hidden crapflation. But hey, government said they're fighting inequality, universities can say they are promoting education, companies can tick the DEI quota box, we all blame it on the "White Man" that can't say anything, DEI groups "get jobs" and the DEI grifter consultant machine makes mega-bucks. Win's all around, right.

The FizzBuzz test came about for similar reasons in 2007 - long before government pressures for DEI quotas[1].

The problem is computer science university degrees aren't enterprise training academies. "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." Universities aren't incentivized to fix this because universities are research institutions - they don't make money from placing students in jobs, so trying to solve this is a dead end.

[1] https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

> The FizzBuzz test came about for similar reasons in 2007 - long before government pressures for DEI quotas[1].

Government pressure for hiring quotas goes back to the 1970s.

It's moreso I don't believe there was a ton of government pressure being applied to startups with 15 people.

That's also still true today.

That happens too but I think the underlying reasons are simpler.

Everyone involved in hiring should read “The Case Against Education” by Caplan.

this has been solved -- with take home coding or whiteboarding.

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.

Yeah I think that’s what Starfighter did. And we are discussing how it failed, so…

What does "reputable" mean in this case when these universities are handing diplomas to graduates who can't code? Somehow we've gotten ourselves into the situation where we force someone with a CS degree from Stanford write some leetcode, even when the people on the hiring panel themselves have degrees from Stanford. Do they still not trust their own university?

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 does "reputable" mean in this case when these universities are handing diplomas to graduates who can't code? Somehow we've gotten ourselves into the situation where we force someone with a CS degree from Stanford write some leetcode, even when the people on the hiring panel themselves have degrees from Stanford. Do they still not trust their own university?

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.

A professional organisation like the ACM which 'accredits' college courses, making sure that 3.5 GPA from MIT is equivalent to a 3.5 GPA from Podunk University.

As someone who attended two different universities for my undergrad, the first was way harder than the second. Basically, I failed out of my first, and cruised through my second. I intentionally selected a much lower ranked university for my second attempt. I felt like I was buying a university degree at my second place. And, yes, both were ACM accredited. It means little.

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."

The reform I'm proposing is that reputable universities should only issue CS degrees to people who can, in fact, code.

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?

This sounds more like a PE Exam equivalent for software engineering which I honestly think should be put into place since most traditional engineering industries have this already.

Yea, I think that is the alternative. A professional body which accredits its members. It is a system which is known to work for other disciplines.