[zeroxfe]

> Your arguments clearly contradict each other

They don't. It's kinda disingenuous to pick phrases out of context to make a point.

But let me clarify anyway:

- smaller companies typically cannot afford to train, they need people on the ground right away.

- larger companies typically do train. Almost every large company I've worked with has dedicated training groups, programs, and staff.

- experience is more valuable than training, which almost all companies filter for

[coliveira]

These phrases came directly from the context of your arguments, so they are not out of context.

You first point proves what I'm saying. Your second point is doubtful, because large companies are the ones that spend the most time in useless interviewing. The training you're eluding to is tool training, which is essential in a place like Google where the programer has to spend most of his time working on closed technology.

Also, saying that companies filter for experience is not correct. Interviews at most tech companies (especially the large ones) is done to eliminate large numbers of people based on the solution of narrow-minded programming questions. These questions rarely correlate with experience, in fact most people that are just out of college can do so well or better in these questions than an experienced engineer.