undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFLUX-YOU8y ago0 comments

>you're not going to risk hiring someone who's a work in progress and might not even work out in terms of having the basic qualifications.

That's what the bloody technical tests are for!

If you're giving those out, on top of a technical verbal interview, and still saying "well, we still don't know if they can even build a CRUD app with our stack", you have a broken hiring process!

I can understand the difficulty in choosing the right questions for the limited time we all have to interview to extract the maximum useful amount of data about someone. And that there's a lot of debate about which questions are right ones to ask. But a technical test that represents the basic unit of usefulness to your company is bare bones stuff.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

philwelch8y ago· 2 in thread

Yeah, I thought we were talking about hiring people who had gaps in their basic CS knowledge and then training them.

FLUX-YOUOP8y ago

As long as they were otherwise able to contribute to the team, which is what should have been found out in the interview. That's what the boot camps are selling. The gaps in CS knowledge were what the article is saying was one of, if not the, deciding factor in choosing a CS grad over a boot camp grad.

philwelch8y ago

Which is a different role. And if it were treated and paid as a different role, and there was an acknowledgement that a coding boot camp graduate without deep CS knowledge could develop into a real software engineer some day but they weren’t one yet, then I would agree with you. But if the role and salary is that of a full-fledged software engineer, understanding CS is a basic qualification.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse