[Benjamin_Dobell]

> If an employer can't ascertain your skill level through the interview process, their hiring is broken.

That's just outright factually inaccurate. Are you expecting employers to hire on blind faith? If employers are hiring without evidence to support your skill-set, then their hiring process is broken.

> Observe how it worked out for everyone who got a degree because employers won't hire without one, and then they don't get hired regardless of that degree.

I don't have a degree, I got my first job because I walked into the interview with a portfolio; more specifically a fully functional completed piece of software that I live demonstrated. This wasn't an open-source project, but I sent them the code to be reviewed nonetheless (I own the IP).

The reason some people with degrees don't get jobs is because people with portfolio's (irrespective of degrees) can demonstrate their skill-set, where as waving around a piece of paper and having no demonstrable skills makes it extremely difficult for a potential employer to evaluate you.

> It is a slippery slope where we allow employers to dictate uncompensated signaling necessary for a role.

I do somewhat agree with this. However, your portfolio need not be open-source work, it's just common as there's some proof (version control, although not tamper-proof) indicating you did the work you're claiming you've done.

[scarface74]

That's just outright factually inaccurate. Are you expecting employers to hire on blind faith? If employers are hiring without evidence to support your skill-set, then their hiring process is broken.

I haven't had any publicly accessible work to show off since I posted a HyperCard stack on AOL and freeware FTP sites while I was in college in 1995. I've been working as a professional developer since 1996, have never been asked to show code and have a pretty good track record for getting jobs based on solely my interview skills and knowledge.

At this point in my career, few companies waste time even asking me about technical trivia. I talk about the projects of the teams I've been on and led. I've gotten jobs over the past 10 years where I didn't meet half of the requirements going in.

[always_good]

Surely the argument isn't that a portfolio is a necessary positive signal, but rather that it's just a positive signal.

In other words, would you take the stance that having some quality work on Github can never work in your favor?

What about other positive-but-not-guaranteed signals like having a quality blog where you cover technical topics? Can that ever work in your favor? Or is it pure noise that can never demonstrate value?

[scarface74]

I have to admit my own bias against actually doing side projects. While I will read technical books dealing with high level concepts, I've never done a side project outside of work.

I'd rather try to champion technology at my job and do a proof of concept or if that isn't possible, change jobs.

I've been able to find jobs where what I am good at is a "requirement" and where what I want to learn is a "nice to have" and learn the nice to have.

I find it carries a lot more weight to be able to talk about how you have used technology at work than a side project unless the side project was a really popular open source project.

Then again, I never work for companies with a large development team where I can't have a large, resume building impact.

[toomuchtodo]

> That's just outright factually inaccurate. Are you expecting employers to hire on blind faith? If employers are hiring without evidence to support your skill-set, then their hiring process is broken.

I have been working in tech for 18 years, as both an IC and a hiring manager. I do not believe it to be inaccurate. It's how I do hiring in my current role.

I also do not have a degree. In my current role, I was hired on the spot leaving the conference room after my interview. In my role before that, I had three video conference interviews and a take home project.

> I do somewhat agree with this. However, your portfolio need not be open-source work, it's just common as there's some proof (version control, although not tamper-proof) indicating you did the work you're claiming you've done.

I used to be an sysadmin|linux|network|infrastructure engineer. Now I'm in security architecture. What work would you have someone like me show that I did the work I claimed to be doing other than me explaining to you what I did and how I did it? No Github repo is going to be able to properly illustrate the work I've done, or the breadth and depth of my knowledge and understanding.

Public repos are a poor signal. Just my two cents. You want to figure out how people think, that's what an interview is for.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

> I also do not have a degree. In my current role, I was hired on the spot leaving the conference room after my interview.

Sounds like a broken hiring process.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying you're bad it your job. I'm saying your employer got lucky.

> I used to be an infrastructure engineer. Now I'm in security architecture. What work would you have someone like me show that I did the work I claimed to be doing other than me explaining to you what I did and how I did it?

There's absolutely nothing stopping you publishing part of your solutions to Github, along with published articles explaining what you did and why you did it.

You've simply chosen not to, and you've artificially limited your hiring prospects by not doing so. You could have a better job.

[toomuchtodo]

> There's absolutely nothing stopping you publishing part of your solutions to Github, along with published articles explaining what you did and why you did it.

Except my intellectual property copyright assignment from both employers. This is pretty standard, even in startups. Your suggestion is unreasonable.

> You could have a better job.

My current job is pretty phenomenal (I do security for financial markets). Definitely interested if you know someone paying more than $230k/year for my skill set. Cash is king.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

> Except my intellectual property copyright assignment from both employers. This is pretty standard, even in startups. Your suggestion is unreasonable.

I'm not suggesting you publish their IP. However, you've the legal right to learn (utilise and transfer between employers) skills that you learn on the clock.

You are absolutely entitled to publish (in one form or another) your personal learnings. Your contract with your employer may (if you have an extremely restrictive contract) simply prevent you claiming you're using those skills as part of your current role.

If employers had the right to prevent you utilising skills you learned on the clock, you'd have to somehow unlearn skills and start from scratch at every new job - that's not how it works.

[FLUX-YOU]

>If employers are hiring without evidence to support your skill-set, then their hiring process is broken.

No one does this. It's just that talking is not evidence enough like it is for other industries because interviewers don't know the right questions to ask. So they add code challenges to fill in the gaps.

It's saying "your previous experience doesn't actually matter that much and we only care if you can actually put code down in the limited fashion of our technical tests". People are naturally annoyed at having to prove they know the basics after 3-5 years in the field.

There's definitely some who hire engineers based on conversation only though. If they can, why can't others?