[EnderMB]

I had an idea a while back around inverting the interview/recruitment process, but a lack of resource/willpower/ability means I won't ever follow through with it. Regardless, I like the idea of it.

If a third-party recruiter is involved, they will get in contact with a developer that they deem to be sellable. Once they've got his/her details, they'll pass them on to an employer, who will then interview them for the role.

The flaws with this approach are:

1. The recruiter doesn't know if you're any good or not. They probably don't care, but a good developer can be sold for a high commission.

2. The interviewee has to interview when it is convenient for the employer

3. The employer has to run a ton of interviews to find a viable candidate, and (probably) come up with a proper interview process to replace their crappy one.

If, instead of having a skills-based interview with the employer, you had one with the recruiter, who would only take you on as a client if you matches a certain level of skill/talent, in theory everyone's problems are solved.

Recruiter: Adds real value to the developer, can sell a provable talent to a company quickly, and ideally with no worry about commission being lost by an employer rejecting an obvious dud.

Developer: Gets to "interview" whenever is convenient for them. Can be evaluated in multiple ways (take home test, face-to-face interview, etc), and can be given real technical feedback as the interview is not for employment, but to sign up for a service.

Employer: Can hold a shorter interview process, and get someone in quickly.

In terms of actual technical interviews, there are so many different ways of doing them that all I ever really want from an employer is some heads-up on what I'll be asked. Interviews are convenient at the best of times, so if I'm going to try and make time when I should be working I want to at least be prepared for the experience.

[jaredsohn]

>If, instead of having a skills-based interview with the employer, you had one with the recruiter, who would only take you on as a client if you matches a certain level of skill/talent, in theory everyone's problems are solved.

There are a few recruiters that try to approximate this; see a list here: https://github.com/vchernoy/dreamjob

[EnderMB]

It's not an original idea, but I think there's a gap in the market for this to be done at a more local level, and for the other 90% of jobs that aren't at big tech agencies.

A lot of these platforms are trying to solve the process for huge companies that offer whiteboard algorithm-based interviews, whereas a local agency down the road just wants a Rails developer with ecommerce experience, or a .NET developer with Umbraco experience. It's these companies that are more likely to want to use a recruiter, and it's tech bosses at these companies that are often wary of not only other peoples interview processes, but their own.

[fitpolar]

This is a really bad idea letting the recruitment agency play a larger role as a gatekeeper. Recruiters have even less of an idea of what kind of technical testing would match a role than an employer, and should NEVER be trusted for this.

I recently experienced this process, when a recruiter had "found" a technical test, and progressing to the next round was dependent on passing this. Unfortunately it wasn't related to the role, I do iOS and the test was a bunch of SQL related questions. I have barely touched SQL anything more than a basic select statement since college 9 years ago, as all searches are done through fetch requests and predicates. Long story short, it's not relevant. The recruiter was arrogant and didn't want to entertain the idea of finding a more relevant test. These people should not be trusted playing a role in the interview process at all.

However, what do you mean by "the interview is not for employment, but to sign up for a service"? This is interesting and may be worth exploring.

[EnderMB]

As standard, yes, it would be a bad idea for a normal recruitment agency to do this.

My problem with recruiters is that they are salespeople. That's all they are. They take a CV, and they sell it to someone, and ultimately it doesn't matter if the person is good or bad, all that matters is that sale. As you've rightly said, they don't know enough about the technical side to provide a technical review.

So, why not have a separate team wholly dedicated to technical vetting? Have the process be completely open to employers, so anyone looking to hire a developer can see exactly what is to be asked of their prospective employees. If the questions are bad, the employer can say so and a qualified developer hired by the recruiter can tweak the process.

It's essentially adding a separate team to the recruitment process, one that builds a robust interviewing framework. They don't need to be full-time either. They can be working developers on a freelance basis that have gone through the interview process, and know what questions to ask based on the stack an employer is using.