[zoltaan]

I have the feeling that the point was the simplistic and damagingly narrow screening process here not the criticism of screening as practice, quite the opposite. The side project request became so mechanistic that everyone can expect it but the reliability is questionable as the authenticity of the product is beyond validation. When people face something expected in a competitive situation then the really competitve - and unethical ones - will go to great lengths for raising their profile even through manufacturing reliable looking evidence (doing it continously, possibly plagiarizing), posing as excellent through acting. No good and easy - and cheap - screening process is available as the reliability of workforce is multidimensional beyond the human capacities to comprehend, also beyond the technical level. Over the years I had bright but unfit colleagues (damaging the team effort, jobhoppers, unsteady performance, cheaters) as well as average ones with grey personality carried the company on their backs. The real test of the bread is eating. They have to show in the particular environment if they are capable in that very specific situation or not. Side projects will tell nothing on this. Using it as a turning point is very ... to be polite, unwise. Still not questioning the need for first filters so the chance of wasted efforts is minimised by not nurturing someone inadequate into the precious environment for months in vain. But that first filter must be way broader than the topic of side projects.