[q845712]

at the moment the comment immediately below this is advising folks to find an internship, and in many ways that's what you're describing - a role with a limited timeline and a low minimum bar, but within which some people will be able to demonstrate abilities and promise far beyond that minimum.

It's reasonable, but it doesn't always work out. One of the larger heartbreaks of my professional mentorship time was bringing in someone who seemed like they could be a "diamond in the rough" but was just unable to ever quite pull it together. Watching this person's limited successes and repeated failures and their understandable, almost always mature emotional responses, and being unable to help them get over the hump was pretty frustrating for all parties involved. I also think it was short-term bad for my career: I felt judged for putting so much energy into someone who wasn't quite working out, and I don't think that opened any doors for me personally.

So - it's still a risk! What I think is that when it works it's great, but the people doing the hiring, evaluation, and training are still taking a fairly time-and-resource intensive risk, and when it doesn't work it's no fun at all. Gives me a lot more sympathy for folks who take the safe route.

Maybe there's a paraphrase of "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" along the lines of, nobody ever gets dinged in performance review or passed over for promotion if they only hire candidates who can sail through whiteboard-algorithms questions.

[stove]

As someone who is regularly helping companies improve the hiring process, I can say with absolute certainty that companies _do_ get dinged for "only hiring candidates who sail through whiteboard-algorithms questions". Companies know that these are not indicators of success and that they lead to uniform teams with homogenous backgrounds.

I will also say that crafting real world "on the job style" interview problems is growing steam, as it should be!