[Teeboo]

Lawyers do not investigate crimes; solving a whodunnit is a terrible comparison.

Plumbers, unlike computer programmers, are typically hired purely by referral or a small amount of marketing. Again, you make a terrible analogy.

A plumber got hired because

A) The risk of a bad plumber is less threatening than the leaking faucet I have right now.

B) a friend said they were a good plumber.

Since JavaScript refactoring is not as pressing as a leaking tap the hirer can take their time and subject you to a rigour out process in order to ensure that the millions of pounds of intellectual property you have access to will be handled in the correct manner.

I agree with the top voted response; the perception is engineers are beginning to whine about everything.

Not you fault, you are just one part of the sum but that sum is sounding more like a spoiled brat than ever before.

[pandaman]

By your complains about my terrible analogies (which they are, intentionally) I am guessing you are one of the few programmers who actually does all the stuff from the interviews on the job?

[Teeboo]

No. I freelance and don't have to do any of that.

However, when I was seeking permanent employment I understood that it was not my circus and not my monkey's. I had to jump through the hoops. The same for coding as it was product management as it was for consultancy.

Rather than complain, why not invent a startup that acts as a universal badge of coding ability and is widely accepted as the industry standard for benchmarking technological ability...

The post just screams (once again) "I am a coder you should simply accept my genius and leave me in peace to work."

Law of averages just tells you that there is a bell curve of ability...at least some of the individuals on Hacker News are precisely the individuals that white boarding and puzzles are designed to catch.

[pandaman]

The issue is that many people already have a substantial proof of their coding ability in form of completed work. The rational approach would be to evaluate that work and, as safety, test that they have actually performed it. Whiteboarding them catches nothing other than inability to perform unusual tasks under stress.

[Teeboo]

As as we know, engineers are never in stressful situations so no point testing it.

Production never goes down, critical errors don't arise and time-pressure tasks are rare.

[pandaman]

People do not behave consistently under stress so such a testing value is close to 0. It's a fight or flight response. If "fight" rolled up on the interview there is no guarantee it will roll up next time your production goes down. You can just as well toss a coin.

[Teeboo]

...and yet soldiers in WW1 and WW2 were subjected to stressful situations lasting years, some of which manifested in mental trauma but many of which actually behaved in the manner required.

My point is; you are neither psychologist nor professional human resources executive search.

Your reasoning for not conducting testing interviews is flawed and can be challenged at every juncture precisely because this is not your area of expertise.

It's not mine either but I am not advocating sweeping policy changes across an entire professional landscape.

If you feel there is a better route; then write up, test it, get it peer reviewed and implement it.