> Your post constrains another misunderstanding about the hiring process: The goal isn’t to hire the first person through the system who is good enough to pass some arbitrary threshold. The goal is collect a number of candidates and hire the best one. People hate this reality, but it’s true.
I definitely do not have any misunderstanding here, and my description of hiring is the same as what you wrote, just in different phrasing: after a period of time, the company has to pick a candidate, presumably the best one by their interview signals.
I am disputing the standard claim of "it's better to have false negatives than false positives" by pointing out how that mindset does not work: since you have to choose someone anyway, the whole "avoiding false positives" might not be a thing at all
Depends where you’re looking in the hiring pipeline. If you’re looking at raw applications submitted to a publicly listed job posting, I can say without reservation that the majority of candidates are not qualified. The pre-screening candidate pool is extremely bad on average, especially for remote job listings. Some people spend all day clicking the apply button on every job listing they see.
Your post constrains another misunderstanding about the hiring process: The goal isn’t to hire the first person through the system who is good enough to pass some arbitrary threshold. The goal is collect a number of candidates and hire the best one. People hate this reality, but it’s true.