[aianus]

> Doesn't that set the bar a little high?

What kind of argument is it that an employer has the bar 'set too high'? Put yourself in their shoes; obviously you're going to hire a photographer/contractor/programmer who can show off a portfolio over one who just talks about it. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

[msandford]

If only 20% of programmers have a portfolio that they aren't bound by a contract not to reveal, does that mean programmers should be 80% unemployment?

I hear what you're saying of course, the easier a person makes it to have their work evaluated, the easier they will be hired.

But I think it's obvious that there are a great many good programmers who do solid work but don't program as a hobby too, and whose professional work can't be released because it's proprietary.

What I'm suggesting is that the notion advanced a couple of comments up of "everyone can have stuff on GitHub" isn't realistic for a variety of reasons and I tried to touch on what those reasons are.

EDIT: I of course agree that an employer should be able to set whatever standard they want to hire people, too. What I'm suggesting is that it's not really practical for every employer to hire to this standard.

[Lawtonfogle]

>If only 20% of programmers have a portfolio that they aren't bound by a contract not to reveal, does that mean programmers should be 80% unemployment?

No. There is no should or should not, there is and is not. And the 'is' of the matter is that a candidate with a portfolio will be ranked higher than a comparable candidate without. That is only one factor, and other factors can still override that factor. And sometimes, you may be applying for a job where no programmer with a portfolio has applied.

I see no problem even if every employer wanted to use this standard, as long as the employer realized it was only one factor of many and not some gold standard.