[tempw]

I am not the author, just to clarify that.

I think the point here is more about how experienced programmers track records are not enough to prove they can do the work sometimes.

Using whiteboard questions to prove ones competency can backfire as well in cases candidates are not really prepared but learned to game the system.

[lj3]

The real problem with whiteboard tests (and it's close cousin, the live coding test) is there is no correlation between being able to pass that test and being able to do the job. Companies that rely on it to determine programming ability are like the drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp because that's where the light is.

[pklausler]

"no correlation"? Nonsense. If you can't program a computer, I'll find that out. And if you can't program a computer, you wouldn't be able to do the job.

The point of my coding interview isn't to give a positive result if the candidate can program a computer. It's a test that's looking for non-programmers.

There might be "false positives", but if I avoid well-known memorizable questions, there won't be "false negatives".

[cema]

There will be false negatives too, but most likely not related to the skills but something else, like mental health or work ethic.